Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1974 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1974 (8) TMI 73 - SC - Companies LawWhether the High Court of Bombay was right in directing additional evidence to be led by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 under Order XLI, rule 27, of the Code of Civil Procedure? Held that:- The application made by the official liquidator did not give sufficient particulars which, in our view, it should have. Once a show-cause notice was given to respondents Nos. 1 to 4 the official liquidator did not lead any evidence nor rely upon any other documents, nor did respondent No. 5, who was instrumental in initiating the misfeasance case against respondents Nos. 1 to 4, lead any evidence. In our view, there was no justification whatsoever for the District Court to reject the evidence which the respondents had intended to lead or to disallow the production of documents other than those already produced, and for that reason the High Court rightly ordered that additional evidence be recorded in this case. The official liquidator failed to establish that the Nagpur company was entitled to the whole or part of the infringement commission by reason of the fact that it was a sole selling agent of the General Motors parts in that particular area or it had an exclusive sub-agency from the Bombay company. The High Court considered that the evidence in the case was not sufficient to establish either of these claims. We have not been persuaded to hold otherwise. It was agreed and accepted by all the associates that a commission of 2 per cent. on all such imports on the c.i.f. or f.o.b. invoice value, as the case may be, should be paid to the Bombay office. But, in so far as sub-item V of Item III was concerned, it was unanimously agreed that the associated offices should pay a commission of 5 per cent. on their imports covered by the licences owned by the Bombay offices. It is not one's case that the commission according to this letter was not paid, and as the Nagpur company has received this commission it cannot claim any additional commission. These two items, namely, ₹ 9,827 and ₹ 2,100, which are allowable to the liquidator come to ₹ 11,927. The other two items for ₹ 7,689-12-0 and ₹ 2,184 which relate to the purchases actually made by the Bombay company in pursuance of their offer and in pursuance of the majority resolution of April 25, 1953, and the difference between the book value and the purchase value of the car by the Bombay company were also allowed. Apart from this, item (5) for a sum of ₹ 2,686-3-0 in connection with the wrongful remission to the Hyderabad company was also allowed. Appeal dismissed.
|