Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.18 seconds)
United Bank Of India vs Tatanagar Foundry Co. Ltd. on 27 August, 1973 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Baijnath Sarda on 28 January, 1970

2. The next objection raised by counsel on behalf of respondent No. 17 was that this suit was incompetent inasmuch as no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been given prior to the institution of this suit. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is explicit and mandatory in its terms and provides that no suit shall be instituted against Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in hit official capacity, until the expiration of two months notice, as mentioned in the section. Counsel for the respondent No. 17 contended that the suit was against the Official Liquidator and was also in respect of act done by him in his official capacity. Therefore, notice under Section 80 was mandatory and imperative in this case. Reliance was placed on provisions of Sections 488, 451, 452, 457 and 445(3) and 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the proposition that the Official Liquidator was a public officer and the property of the company being in his custody as custodian and the suit being in respect of that property this is in respect of the acts done by him in his official capacity. It was further submitted that even in respect of future acts notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was necessary and reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Union of India v. Baijnath, . In support of that proposition, counsel for respondent No. 17 drew my attention to several decisions to which I shall briefly refer. It, how-ever, appears to me that Official Liquidator can legitimately be described as a public officer as contemplated under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in terms of Section 2(17)(d) as well as Sub-section (17) (h) of the said section. But the Official Liquidator is in custody of the property of the company and the suit of this nature in its true perspective, in my opinion, is a suit against the company and is not against the Official Liquidator as such. That would be clear by a reference to Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the relevant rules of the Company Court Rules being Rules 115 & 118. Therefore, though it is true that the Official Liquidator is a public officer the suit of this nature is not in respect of any act done by the Official Liquidator, the suit is in respect of the act done or right of the company in liquidation.
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next