THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v. PARTHASARATHI SINHA & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 211

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH

Judgment text

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v. PARTHASARATHI SINHA & OTHERS December 17, 1982 (S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ. J .. rr Companies Ac/, 1956-Sections 543 and 634-Scope of-Misfeasance tJNl breach of trust alleged against dirttctorsof a coinpany in liquidation-Death ofa director during pendency of prOcetdings-Hefrs and legal representatives of deceased director, if could be substituted in place of deceased director-After declaration of liability of director, if amounts due could be realised from legal representatires. . ,. The respondents were the heirs and legal repre.! ientatives of one of the directors of a Company in 1iquidatio9. When the company was ordered to be wound up, the Official Liquidator took out summons under section 543 (1) of the Companies Act against its directors for a declaration that the said directors were guilty of misfeasa.

qce and breach of trust and also fOr an order directing them to repay or restore the money or property of the company in liquidation which they were alleged_ to have retained wrongfully. During the pendency of the proceedings one of the directors died intestate leaving behind the respondenta as his heirs and legal representatives. At the instance of the Official Liquidator tho Company Judge passed an order substituting the respondents in place of the deceased director. ; Allowing the respondents' appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court held that μo further action in the misfeasance proceedings could be taken against the legal representatives of the deceased director. In coming to this conclusion the High Court purported to follow the decision of this Court in Official Liquidator v. P. A.. Tendolkar (dead) by L. Rs. , [1973] 3 S. C. R. 364.

Allowing the Appeal, HELD : The liability ans1ng under the misfeasance proceedings is founded on the principle that a person who bas caused loss to the company by an act amounting to breach of trust should make good the loss. Section 543 of the Act provides for a summary remedy for determining the amount payable by sllch person on proof of the necessary ingredients. The section authorises the Court to direct such persons chargeable under it to pay a sum of money to the Company by way of compensation. This is not a provision intended to punish a man who has been found guilty of misfeasance but is only intended for compensating the company in respect of the loss occa~ioned by his misfeasance. Whenever there is a relationship based on contract. quasi- · contract, some fiduciary relatio! l 0r a failure to perforll! a dutr, there is DQ ·~- 212 SUPREME COURT RBPORTP (1983] 2 S. C. R. abatement of the liability on thi: death of the wrong doer.

When once the liability is declared, it is open to the Official Liquidator to realise the amount due by resorting to section 634 of the Act and section 50 of the Code of Civil . ,.. Procedure. In Tendo/kar"s case this Court did not consider the effect of section 634 of the Act which made the rekvant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to execution of decrees applicable to orders passed by;the Court under the Act. [223 C·F] At the conclusion of th~: proceedings under section 543 a declaration of the liability is made. Such dec',aration partakes of the charact_er of a decree in a suit. When once such declaration is made it can be enfotced under section 634 of 1he Act and where the order made by oae court has to be executed by another court the procedure prescribed by section 635 of the Act has to be followed. In the course of suet. execution proceedings the provisions of section SO of. the Code of Civil Procedu:~~ have to.

be- applied when the person who is made liable dies before the order is satisfied and the liability of the legal representatives should be determined accordingly. [223 G-H] Official Liquidato', Supr.! me Bank Ltd. v. P. A. Tendolkar (dead) by L. Rs, & Ors. , [1973] 3 S. C. R. 364, applied. > • 0 A/eykutty Varkey Thai·akan & Anr. v. Official Liquidator & Ors. , [1978] 4 Comp. Cas. 472, approved. Shiwalik Transport Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Thakur Ajit Singh & Ors. , [1978] 48 Comp. Cas. 465, approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil AppealJNo. 3614 of 1982.. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the ! st August, 1975 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. /~ 324 Of i 97Q. . Shanker Ghosh, A. 'K. Verma and P. K. Basu for the Appellant. The Judgment oftbe Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J.

The short question which arises for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether the proceedings initiated against a director of a company under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can be continued after his death against his legal representatives and > .. ,.. whether any amount declared to be due in such proceediqgs can be· ff realised from the esi:ate of the deceased in the hands of his legal representatives, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v: PARTHASARATHI (Venkatararniah, J. ) 213 The facts of the present case may be briefly stated thus·: Ballygunge Real Property and Building Society Ltd. (hereinafter -· referred to as 'the Company in liquidation') was ordered to be wound up by the Fligh Court of Calcutta on houary 8, \ 9 58. On January 2, 1963, the Official Liquidator took out summons under section 543(1) of the Act against its directors including Dr. · S. N.

Sinha for a declaration that the said directors were guilty of misfeasance and breach of trust and also for an order directing them to repay or restore the money or property of the Company in liquidation which they were alleged to have retained wrongfully. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Dr. S. N. Sinha died on November 16, 1969 intestate leaving behind his son, Parthasara· thi Sinha and two married daughters, Maya Bose and Mira Mitra as his heirs and legal representatives. On February 12, 1970, Judge's summons was taken out at the instance of the Official Liquidator for leave to continue the said proceedings against the said heirs and legal representatives. The learned Company Judge passed an order on November 9,1970 for substitution of the said heirs and legal representatives in place of. Dr. S. N. Sinha, the deceased. Against that order, the heirs and legal representatives of Dr. S. N.

Sinha preferred an appeal before the Division ·Bench of the Calcutta High Court under section 483 of the Act. That appeal was allowed by the Division Bench on August I, 1975 and save and except that the death of Dr. S. N. Sinha was recorded, the order of the Company Judge was set aside. This appeal is filed against the order of the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, the principal contention urged on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of Dr. S. N. Sinha, since deceased was that in view of the decision of this Court in Official Liquidator, Supreme Bank Ltd. v. P. A. Tendolkar (dead) by L. Rs. & Ors. (') no further action in t be misfeasance proceedings could be taken against them and we are concerned only with that contention in this appeal. Since the effect of the above decision is understood in one way by the High Court of Calcutta in this case and differently by the High Court of Kerala in Aleykutty Varkey Tharakan & Anr. v. Official Li!

fuidator & 2 Ors. ( ) and by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Shiwalik 3 Transport Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Thakur Ajit Singh & Ors,( ) we (I) (1973) 3 S. C. R. 364. (2) [1978] 48 Comp, Cas, 472. (3) [1978] 48 Comp. C~s. 465. shall proceed to discuss the decision in Tendolkar's case (supra) at some length. Before doing so, we shall refer to the relevant provisions of law and the specific averments made in this case by the Official Liquidator. Section 543 of the Act reads as follows : "543. Power of Court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. -(! ) If in the course of winding up of a company, it appears that any person who bas taken part in the promotion or formation of the company, or any past or presc:nt director, managing agent, secretaries and treasurers, manager, liquidator or officer of the company- (a) bas misapplied, or retained, or become liable , .

or accountable for, any money or property of the company; or (b) has been guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the company; the Court may, on the application of the Official Liquidator, of the liquidator, or of any creditor or contributory, made within the time specified in that behalf in sub·section (2). examine into the conduct of the person, director, managing agent, secretaries and treasurers, manager, liquidator officer ' aforesaid, and compel him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof respectively, with interest at such rate as the Court thinks just, or to contribute . such sum to the assets of the company by way of compensation in respect. of the misapplication, retainer, misfeasance or breach of trust, as the Co·~rt thinks just. 12> An a.

pplication under sub-section (I) shall be made within five years from the date of the -0rder for winding up, or of the first appointment of the liquidator in the winding up, or of the misapplication, retainer, misfoasaoce or breach of trust, as ·the case may be, whichever is longer. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v, PARTHASARATHI (Venkataramiah, J. ) 215 (3) This section shall apply notwsthstanding that the matter is one for which the person concerned may be criminally liable. " Section 634 of the Act reads : "634. Enforcement of order of Courts - Any order made by a Court under this Act may be enforced in the same manner as a decree made by the Court . in a suit pending therein''.

Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure defines the expression 'legal representative' as 'a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom • l the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued'. Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads : "50. Legal representative - (I) Where a judgmentdebtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased.

(2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands · and has not been duly disposed of; and, for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit". The Official Liquidator pleaded before the High Court that due to various breaches of trust and/or breaches of contract, express or implied and/or breaches of fiduciary duties and other acts of misfeasance on the part of Dr. S. N. Sinha, since deceased, loss had ___.. J been caused to the Company in liquidation and that the assets of Dr. S. N. Sinha had benefitted thereby. He further alleged that the assets of Dr. S. N. Sinha in the hands of his heirs and legal representatives were liable for the claims made in the said misfeasance proceedings. ;,.

··-· 216 SUPRErtlE COURT RFPO'ltTS [1983] 2 S. C. R. We shall now revert to Tendo/kar's case (supra). That case arose out of certain misfeasance proceeding• commenced by the Official Liquidator in the winding up proceedings of a banking company against the managing director, the other directors and some of the employees of the company. Two of the directors died while the proceedings wen: pending. The Company Judge dismissed the proceedings against the employees as time barred and held that the heirs of the deceased directors could not be proceeded against. He was of the viow that the misfeasance proceedings being of special nature involving an enquiry into the alleged wrongful conduct of directors personally, the liability of a director for such wrong doing was personal in character and, therefore, vanished with the death of the director.

But in respect of the managing director and those directors who were alive when he gave his decision, he gave certain directions regarding theif individual liability. Against that decision five appeals were filed before the Division Bench of the High Court. In those appeals, the correct- A • ness of the decision of the Company Judge to exempt the heirs and legal representatives of the two deceased directors was not questioned by any partv. In those appeals, the Division Bench reduced the total liability of the directors and the individual liability of the managing director though it placed a larger share of the burden of contribudon on the managing director. Against that judgment, the Official Liquidator appealed to this Court in respect of the liability of the managing director and two other directors. One of the two directors namely, P. A. Tendolkar died pending the grant of bis own application for a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution.

His heirs got themselves impleaded and contended that the' proceedings against them could not be continued and also that the claim against the deceased director was untenable on merits. Dealing with the liability of the heirs and legal representatives of persons against whoni action was taken under section 542 and :iB of the Act, this Court observed at page 380 thus : "The maxim rzctio persona/is moritur cum persons, as pointed fr, Winfield's Law of Tort (Eighth Edn. 603-605), was an invention of English Common Lawyers. It seemed to have resulted from the strong quasi-criminal character of the. action for trespass. Just like a prosecution fo~ a criminal offence, the action for trespass, which . was "the parent c,f much of our modern law of tort", was OFFICIAL LIQUID. ATOR v. PARTHASARATHI (Venkataramiah, J. ) 217 held, by applying this maxim, to be incapable of suriving the death of the wrongdoer, and, in some cases, even of the party injured..

The maxim, with its extensions, was criticised by Winfield and found to be "pregnant with a good deal more mischief than was ever born of it". Whatever view one may take of the justice of the principle, it was clear that it would not be applicable to actions based on contract or where a tortfeasor's estate had benefitted from a wrong done. ~ts application was generally confined to actions for damages for· defamation, seduction, inducing a spouse to remain apart from the other, and adultery. We see no reason to extend the maxim, as a general principle, even to cases involving breaches of fiduciary duties or where the personal conduct of the deceased Director has been fully enquired into, and the only question for determination, on an appeal, is the extent of the liability incurred by the deceased Director. Such liability must necessarily be confined to the assets or estate left by the deceased in the hands of the successors.

In so far as an heir or legal representative has an interest in the assets of the deceased and represents the estate, and the liquidator represents the interests of the Company, the heirs as well as the liquidator should, in eq11ity be able to question a decision which affects the interests represented. " At a later stage in the same case, this Court made the following observations at pages 381-382: "It will be seen that, while Section 335 of the Act of 1913, like Section 543 of the Companies Act of 1956, to which it corresponds. gives the power to the Court to enquire into the conduct of "any past or present Director", yet, both Section 235 of the Act of 1913 and Section 543 of the Companies Act of 1956 confine the power of the Court to make orders for repayment or restoration of money or property or contribution to the assets of the Company against the individuals occupying the capacities, either in the past or present, mentioned therein.

This power d,oes not, on the language of these provisions, extend to making compulsive orders against ·heirs of delinquents. As the power to take these special proceedings is discre. tionary and does not exhaust other remedies, although, the Court may, as a matter o:r justice and equity, drop proceedings against delinquent Directors, Managers, or Officers who are no longer alive, leaving the complainant to his ordinary . remedy by a civil suit against the assets of the deceased, yet, where no injustice may be caused by continu· ing these proceedings against past Director, even though he be dead, the proceedings could continue after giving persons who may be interested opportunities to be heard. But, even such i:•roceedings can only result in a declaration of the liability, of a deceased director, because the language of Section 235 of the Act of 1913, as already noticed, does not authorise passing of orders to compel heirs or legal representatives to do anything.

Such compulsive proceedings as mi. y become necessary against those upon whom devolve the assets or the estate of a deceased delinquent Director, wh·J may have become liable could only lie outside Section 235 of the Act of 1913. " Again in the same case, it was observed by this Court at page 383 thus: "It. may be possible (though we need express no final opinion on the matter) where a proceeding under Section 543 is covered also by the terms of Section 542 of the Companies Act of 1956, to give directions to persons other . )_ than those whose conduct is enquired into, including directions to heirs and legal representatives, for the purpose of enforcing a declaratio11.

But, we think that the power under Section 235 of the Act of 1913, which corresponds to Section 543 of the Act of 1956, would not extend beyond making a declaration against a deceased Director provided he, in his life time, or his heirs, after his death, have had due opportunity of putting forward the case on behalf of the allegedly delinquent Director. If either a Liquidator or the heir,of a delinquen:t Director, against whom a declaration of liability has been made, can question determination of liability of the deceased delinquent, who was alive at the time of the Judgment against him, it is obvious that the Appellate Court could give a declaration either reducing or increasing the liability even though it may not be able to enforce it by an order under Section 235 of the Act. If OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v. PARTHASARATHl (Venkataramiah, J.

) 219 the declaratfon can be questioned by an appeal, as we think that it can, the liability can be not only wiped off or reduced but also increased on an appeal heard after the death of a Director held liable. Applying the principles laid down above to the case before us, we find ·that Tendolkar had a full! opportunity of defending himself against the misfeasance proceedings taken by the liquidator. He also exercised his right of appeal against the order of the Company Judge. The Division Bench, as already observed, reduced his liability. His heirs were heard on merits in the · appeal before us. Any order passed by us could only 11. ffect the assets or the estate of the deceased Tendolkar. But, as already indicated by us, we cannot, in these proceedings, pass [an order against the heirs to Tendolkar so as to compel them to do . ; anything.

The Official Liquidator or the co-Directors may, however, take any other proceeding which may be open to them under the law so as to obtain the contribution of Tendcilkar. " Finally this Court gave inter alia the following direction occurring at pages 400-401 : "(6) The case is remanded to the learned Company Judge for passing such orders against the Managing Director Samant and Director Ajgaonkar, under Section 235 of the Act of 1913, as may be needed for discharging the liabilities determined above, but no such orders will be passed against the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Director P. A. Tendolkar under Section 235 of the Act of 1913, although their liabilities are declared. The Official Liquidator and L. S. Ajgaonkar are, however, left free to seek such other remedies, if necessary, by appfopriate proceedings under the law, against the estate or assets of P. A. Tendolkar. as may. be open to them. " .

Justice Masud of the Calcutta High Court who heard the case under appeal understood the above decision of this Court . -.. -. "" thus : "The observ. ation of the Supreme Court give an indication that in a proper case the declaration of the 220 SUPREME COURT RE•ORTS (J 983] 2 S. C. R. liability of a delinquent Director, who subsequently dies, is possible but no order for repayment or restoring the money or property lying in possession of the heirs can be passed against the heirs or legal representatives of such Directors. " Justice Ghose, the other Judge of the Division Bench observed : "In Official Liquidator Supreme Bank Ltd. v. P. R. Tendolkar (Dead) i\y L. Rs. and OJhers, respondents AIR 1973 S. C.

1104 the Supreme Court held that where a delinquent Director was examined in a proceeding under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and thereafter dies before an order for payment was made against him, in such proceeding the order that could be passed in the said misfeasance proceeding as against the deceased Director was merely a declaration as to his liability to the Company in liquidation. No order for payment for the di:;charge of such liability could be made. The Supreme Court observed that before a declaration as to liability could b~ made against such Director, his heirs and personal representatives should be heard. The Supreme Court, however, expressly negatived the contention l! I that wh~re a Director died after he had been examined in a proceeding under Section 235 of the repealed Act, his heirs or legal repr e continued accordingly against the heirs and legal representatives of Dr. S. N. Sinha since deceased. c; There sh~ll be no order 3s to ~ sis, P. B. R.

Appeal allowed.