Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In order to secure the repayment of the loan of Rs. 45,000, the company along with the then board of directors of the company, namely, Meghraj Berlia, Mohit Kumar Berlia, Lalit Kumar Berlia, Amit Kumar Berlia and Sujit Kumar Berlia along with Kamal Kumar Khaitan and Smt. Kamala Khaitan, executed a hundi and/or promissory note for Rs. 45,000 on May 15, 1981. It is the case of the petitioner that the money still remains unpaid in spite of the service of the statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.

5. Mr. S.B. Mookherjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, draws my attention to certain records of the company which are annexed to the petition. Exhibit-B is the minutes of the proceedings of a meeting of a board of directors of the company held on May 18, 1981, at 11.00 a.m. It appears from the minutes that among those present were Meghraj Berlia, Mohit Berlia, Lalit Berlia and Amit Berlia, chairman and directors of the company. The minutes/inter alia, contain the following :

" Thereafter, the chairman informed the board that to accommodate the working capital of the company some loans have been taken from Mr. A.R. De, Smt. Mithu Chakrabarti, Mr. Shanti Kant Jhingan and Mr. N.N. Chakrabarti at 18% per annum interest for a short period against separate hundis in respective names in favour of respective persons duly signed by the remaining directors of the company in their personal capacity and also on behalf of the company, countersigned by Sujit Kumar Berlia and Mr. & Mrs. K.K. Khaitan, relatives of the above-named directors.
3. Mr. Shanti Kant Jhinghan 15-5-81 40,000 20-10-81
4. Mr. N. N. Chakrabarti 15-5-81 40,000 30-11-81 These minutes are signed by Mohit Kumar Berlia, Lalit Kumar Berlia, Amit Kumar Berlia and Subroto Chowdhury and is certified to be a true copy by Meghraj Berlia.

7. On November 16, 1981, Mr. Gourishankar Mitra, an advocate, on behalf of the petitioning creditor addressed a statutory notice to the company. The reply of the company is from Mr. N.C. Mullick, an advocate of, this court, on behalf of the company and is dated December 4, 1981. In the second paragraph of that letter, the following sentence occurs: " It is specifically denied that your clients had granted loan to my clients ". The following paragraph contains a somewhat inconsistent plea that Meghraj Berlia and others--without specifying who the others are--have already paid in full settlement of the claim of the petitioner and they are holding a receipt for the same. According to this paragraph, Meghraj Berlia has already informed the company that they have paid the amount due to the petitioner in full and as such the question of further payment does not arise.

"With reference to the allegations contained in para. 6 of the petition, I state that the petitioner did not lend and advance the said sum of Rs. 40,000 to the company, the said sum was actually lent and advanced by the company to Meghraj Berlia, Lolit Kumar Berlia, Amit Kumar Berlia, Sujit Kumar Berlia, P.B. Khaitan and Smt. Kamala Khaitan in their personal capacity and the said sum was received by them. At the request of the petitioners, the company has actually signed the alleged loan document to secure the loan granted to the said Meghraj Berlia and others.''