AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Prakash Rao, J.—Heard Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the appellants and also the Official Liquidator.
Since all these matters are connected and arise out of common order passed, they have been taken up together for disposal.
The only question which involves in these appeals is as to whether the objection raised by the appellants herein have come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge.
Briefly staled the facts of the case are that in the proceedings which arise in liquidation of a company the appellants herein filed a comprehensive affidavit in March 2004 whereas they raised several pleas including as to their entitlement of fee and commission as Advocate from out of the chit amount as mentioned in para 5. That apart, there is a specific plea in totally disowning the very transaction itself and, therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. After contest by the respondent herein the learned Single Judge framed the following issues:
Whether the 1st respondent is entitled to the commission from the chit fund company for having enrolled the members in various chit groups?
Whether the 1st respondent is entitled for any of the retainer fee at the rate of Rs. 7,000 per month?
Whether the company was due towards the fees to the respondents for the service rendered by them by appearing before the Courts on behalf of the company?
Whether the 1st respondent is entitled to all those amounts?
Considering those issues the learned Single Judge held that at this juncture as the questions cannot be gone into and left open for the appellants to obtain a decree towards fee. So far as the Commission is concerned, the same was deprecated. Hence, these appeals.
Learned Counsel for the appellants pointed that there was no agreement in regard to the Advocate fee or commission as such, but however there is no finding in regard to the disputed plea raised in para 6 of the counter-affidavit. There is no serious denial in this regard from respondent side. Admittedly, there is no specific issue framed on this aspect nor there is any consideration nor there is any reason as to why the said plea is not sustainable.
Having regard to the same, we are of the view that an opportunity can be given, so that the matter can be considered afresh only on this aspect.
All these appeals arc accordingly allowed. The matters are remitted back to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity to both sides. It shall open for the Court to frame appropriate issue on the said objection raised by the appellants herein and also to hold an enquiry with a liberty to both sides to lead any evidence in support.
No costs.