TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as legal representatives of respondent No. 4 and accordingly amend the cause title. 2. In the application C.A. No. 160 of 1995, which was filed by the Official Liquidator for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,00,088, it was averred that the ex-Managing Director and other Directors of the company-in-liquidation, became due and liable to pay the above amount for the loss sustained by the company on account of their acts of commission, omission, misfeasance and malfeasance. During the course of enquiry, respondent No. 4 in the said application, died, and after obtaining Family Member Certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, he filed the present application for bringing the proposed respondents as legal representatives of the deceased. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfeasance proceedings can be realized from the estate of the deceased in the hands of his legal representatives. The legal representative, of course, would not be liable for any sum beyond the value of the estate of the deceased in his hands.... (p. 188) The Apex Court further held thus : The liability arising under the misfeasance proceedings is founded on the principle that a person who has caused loss to the company by an act amounting to breach of trust should make good the loss. Section 543 of the Act does not really create any new liability. It only provides for a summary remedy for determining the amount payable by such person on proof of the necessary ingredients. The section authorizes the Court to direct such persons chargeabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht in ordering substitution of the legal representatives as the respondents." (p. 687) In view of the legal position, as set out supra, it cannot be said that no proceedings can be continued against the legal heirs of a Director of the Company in liquidation, upon his death. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in N.S. Rajagopal s case ( supra ), while holding that a duty was cast on the counsel for the deceased Director to bring the fact of death of the deceased Director to the notice of the Court, held thus : "...the fact that the official liquidator had not furnished particulars as to the enquiries made by her and to explain the delay in filing the application was not fatal to the substitution because ( a ) no abatement was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to pay out the dues of respondent No. 4, cannot be accepted, at this stage. 6. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, it has to be held that the death of a deceased Director of a company in liquidation does not bring about abatement of the proceedings for recovery of dues of the company in liquidation, and they can be continued against the legal heirs of a deceased Director upon his death, and it is for the legal heirs of the deceased Director to prove beyond doubt that no property of the decea-sed Director devolved upon them nor they benefited out of the estate left behind by the deceased Director. Therefore, this application at this instance of the Official Liquidator to bring the proposed respondents as legal heirs of respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
