Skip to content


Kamal Bros. (1937), Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar Chatterjee and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Cal488
AppellantKamal Bros. (1937), Ltd.
RespondentSunil Kumar Chatterjee and ors.
Cases ReferredNorth Australian Territory Co. v. Goldsborugh Mort
Excerpt:
- .....28, the official liquidator states that the defendants in this suit, santosh kumar banerjee, sunil kumar chatterjee and amita prosad chatterjee as well as the receiver mr. s.n. banerjee, were examined under section 195, companies act. their examination has now been concluded. he further states that the facts elicited by such examinations clearly indicate a well designed conspiracy to defraud the creditors of the company and also to keep the business away from their reach and that he 'will crave leave to take copies of such examinations and use the same in these proceedings.' the depositions were made under the provisions of section 195, companies act, and obtained by the liquidator under rule 174 of chap. 31 of the original side rules made under the companies act. such depositions so.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Lort-Williams, J.

1. In this case the Official Liquidator has filed a petition asking that a receiver be appointed of the stock-in-trade, books of account and other books and papers of Kamal Shoe House carrying on business at College Street Market in Calcutta. An interim receiver has already been appointed. In his petition, para. 28, the Official Liquidator states that the defendants in this suit, Santosh Kumar Banerjee, Sunil Kumar Chatterjee and Amita Prosad Chatterjee as well as the Receiver Mr. S.N. Banerjee, were examined under Section 195, Companies Act. Their examination has now been concluded. He further states that the facts elicited by such examinations clearly indicate a well designed conspiracy to defraud the creditors of the company and also to keep the business away from their reach and that he 'will crave leave to take copies of such examinations and use the same in these proceedings.' The depositions were made under the provisions of Section 195, Companies Act, and obtained by the liquidator under Rule 174 of Chap. 31 of the Original Side Rules made under the Companies Act. Such depositions so obtained are to be regarded as private documents: see North Australian Territory Co. v. Goldsborugh Mort & Co. (1893) 2 Ch. 381. The liquidator therefore was not entitled to state in his petition that the facts elicited by such examinations clearly indicated a well-designed conspiracy to defraud the creditors of the company and also to keep the business away from their reach.

2. Santosh Kumar Banerjee, Sunil Kumar Chatterjee and Amita Prosad Chatterjee, the defendants in the suit have applied for copies of the depositions made by them. In the circumstances which I have stated, I think that each of them is entitled to have a copy of his own deposition upon his counsel undertaking on his behalf to prevent communication of his deposition to his co-defendants or their solicitors or counsel. Such an order was made in In re Merchants Fire Office (1899) 1 Ch. 432 and in my opinion the facts of the present case justify a similar order, which is accordingly made. Costs to be paid by the company. Certified for counsel. The Registrar to act on counsel's endorsement.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //