AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramaswami Gounder, J.—This appeal is preferred by one of the share holders of a company against the order of the District Judge, before
whom the winding up proceedings are pending, allowing interest at six per cent, per annum on the moneys overdrawn by another share holder who
is one of the respondents to this appeal. He had overdrawn to the extent of Rs. 3,638-11-0. On an application made by the Official Liquidator, the
Company Court directed the first respondent to pay back the amount with interest at 6 per cent, per annum. This appeal is preferred, not by the
Official Liquidator who alone would be competent to prefer the appeal but by one of the share holders, on the ground that the rate of interest
allowed by the District Judge was low and should have been 9 per cent, per annum. It is true that the first respondent in the reply notice given by
him to another share holder Kuthalingam Pillai agreed to keep the moneys of the company in his hands at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum. That
letter has not been referred to by the learned District Judge. But then the objection taken by the first respondent''s counsel is that this appeal is
incompetent. As stated above, the appeal should have been preferred by the Official Liquidator but he has not done so. It is difficult to see how
this appellant who is only a share holder is competent to maintain the appeal. His learned Counsel contended that he has got the leave of this Court
on the Appellate Side in C.M.P. No. 8344 of 1955. But that leave was granted without any notice to the respondents and certainly not by the
Company Judge. No leave was obtained from the District Judge before whom the winding up proceedings are pending. The appeal is therefore
incompetent.
A request was however made to convert this appeal into a Civil Revision Petition. But there is this difficulty in doing so, because the Official
Liquidator has got a right of appeal and inasmuch as he not preferred the appeal himself, it will not be proper to interfere in revision at the request
of a share holder.
This appeal is dismissed but without costs.