{"id":211456,"date":"1966-03-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-03-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966"},"modified":"2016-03-24T22:54:36","modified_gmt":"2016-03-24T17:24:36","slug":"harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966","title":{"rendered":"Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1707, \t\t 1966 SCR (3) 948<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM. W. PRADHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n21\/03\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1707\t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 948\n\n\nACT:\nCivil Procedure Code 1908, O.XL r. 1 (d)--Receiver  directed\nby court to file winding up petition against debtor Company-\nSuch direction whether permitted by said rule.\nIndian\tCompanies  Act,\t 1956, ss.  439(1)  and\t 434-Whether\nReceiver  appointed  by\t Court is a  'creditor'\t within\t the\nmeaning of s. 439-Notice given by Receiver to company asking\nit  to\tpay  to\t the  Additional  Collector  the  income-tax\ndemanded  from it under s. 46 of the Indian Income-tax\tAct,\n1922-Such  notice  whether contravenes\ts.  434-Company\t not\nmaking payment to Additional Collector whether 'neglects  to\npay its debt, within meaning of s. 434.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant company purchased a farm from a\tjoint  Hindu\nfamily for Rs. 40 lacs out of which Rs. 25 lacs remained  to\nbe paid.  The Income-tax Officer served a notice under s. 46\nof the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 on the company asking  it\nnot to pay the said amount of Rs. 251\/- to the joint  family\nbut   towards  income-tax  payable  by\tthe   said   family.\nThereafter  one of the members of the joint family  filed  a\nsuit  for  the\tpartition of the family assets\tand  at\t his\nrequest\t the  court appointed a Receiver.  The\tReceiver  by\nnotice\tunder s. 434 of the Companies Act asked the  company\nto  pay\t Rs. 25 lacs towards income-tax\t to  the  Additional\nCollector  and\twhen it did not do so he  sought  permission\nfrom  the  Court under O.XL r. 1 (d) of the  Code  of  Civil\nProcedure  to  file a petition for winding  up\tagainst\t the\ncompany,,  which. was allowed.\tThe Company's appeal to\t the\nDivision  Bench of the High Court failed and it appealed  to\nthis Court by special leave.  The Court had to consider\t (i)\nwhether\t the  court could under O.XL r. 1 (d)  of  the\tCode\nauthorize the Receiver to file a winding-up petition against\nthe company, (ii) whether a roceived was a 'creditor' within\nthe meaning of s. 439(1) of the Indian Companies Act,  (iii)\nwhether in asking the company to pay the sum in question  to\nthe  Additional Collector the Receiver contravened  s.\t434,\n(iv)   whether\tin  not\t making\t the  payment  the   company\n'neglected  to\tpay its debt' and (v) whether  there  was  a\nbonafide  dispute as to the liability of the company to\t pay\nthe debt.\nHELD:\t  (i) Assuming that a petition for winding up of-  a\ncompany\t was not a suit within the meaning of O.XL r. 1\t (d)\nof  the\t Code,\tthe  other  powers  mentioned  therein\twere\ncomprehensive\tenough\tto  enable  the\t Receiver  to\ttake\nnecessary proceedings to realise the property of and debts\ndue  to the joint family.  A winding up petition  is-one  of\nthe  modes  of\trealising  debts form  a  company,  and\t the\nRespondent therefore had power to file such a petition.\nBowes  v.  Hope Life Insurance and Guarantee Co.  (1865)  It\nH.L.C. 388, Re General Company for Promotion of Land Credit,\n(1870)\tL.R. 5 Ch-D. 380 and Re National Permanent  Building\nSociety, (1869) L.R. 5 Ch.D. 309, Relied on.\nThat  apart, under O.XL, R. 1 (d) the Court can also  confer\non  the\t Receiver such of those powers as the  Court  thinks\nfit. it is implicit in 948\n949\nthis apparently wide power that it shall be confined to\t the\nscope of the Receiver's administration of the estate. if for\nthe  proper and effective management of the estate of  which\nthe Receiver has been appointed the Court thinks fit that it\nshall  confer power on the said Receiver to take  steps\t for\nthe  winding up of the debtor-company, it must\tbe  conceded\nthat the Court shall have power to give necessary directions\nto the Receiver in that regard. [951 G-952 E]\n(ii) The Receiver was a 'creditor' within the meaning of  s.\n4396(1) (b) of the Indian Companies Act. [956 D]\nIn Re Sacker, Ex Parte Sacker (1888) L.R. 22 Q.B. 179 and In\nreMacoun, L.R. (1904) 2 K.B. 700, considered.\nK.   V. Mallayya v. T. Ramaswami & Co., [1963] II M.L.J. 100\n(S.C.), relied on.\n(iii)\t  By  asking the company to pay the sum in  question\nto  the Addition Collector the requirements of s.  434\twere\nnot contravened. [957 D]\nJapan  Cotton Trading Co. Ltd. v. Jajodia Cotton Mills\tLtd.\n(1926)\tI.L.R.\t54 Cal. 345, Kureshi v. Argu  Footwear\tLtd.\nA.I.R. 1931 Rang. 306 and W. T. Henley's Telegraph Works Co.\nLtd.,  Calcutta\t v.  Gorakhpur\tElectric  Supply  Co.  Ltd.,\nAllahabad, A.I.R. 1936 All. 840, referred to.\n(iv) By not paying the amount in question to the  Additional\nCollector  the company clearly neglected to pay\t the  amount\nwithin\tthe meaning of s. 434 of the Indian Income-tax\tAct.\n[958 H]\nIn re Europe and Banking Company Ex Parte Baylis (1866) L.R.\n2 Eq. 521, distinguished.\n(v)  On the facts of the case them was no bona fide  dispute\nas to the liability of the company to the joint family so as\nto render the winding up petition an abuse of the process of\nthe Court. [959 F]\nW.   T.\t Henley's  Telegraph  Works Co.\t Ltd.,\tCalcutta  v.\nGorakhpur  Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Allahabad, A.I.R.\t1936\nAll.  840 and In re Gold Hill Mines, (1883) L.R. 23 Ch.\t  D.\n210, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 569 of 1965.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nDecember 14, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.  67
\nof 1964.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C.\t  Chatterjee, S. T. Desai, M. M. Vakil,\t Ganpat\t Rai
\nand S.\t  S. Khanduja, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
S.   V.\t Gupte, Solicitor-General, J. B.  Dadachanji, O.  C.
\nMathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSubba Rao, J. The facts that gave rise to this appeal may be
\nbriefly\t stated\t : On January 3,  1933,\t Messrs.   Harinagar
\nSugar  Mills  Ltd.,  hereinafter  called  the  Company,\t was
\nincorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (Act 7  of
\n1913).\tNarayanlal Bansilal was the Chairman of the Board of
\nDirectors of
\n950<\/span>
\nthe Company.  He was also the karta and manager of the joint
\nHindu family consisting of himself, his sons and  daughters.
\nAs  such karta he purchased a large block of shares  of\t the
\nCompany from and out of the funds of the joint family.\t The
\nsaid family also owned a sugarcane farm at Harinagar in\t the
\nState  of Bihar.  On March 8, 1956, Narayanlal Bansilal\t and
\nhis  three sons sold the said farm to the Company for a\t sum
\nof Rs. 40,00,000.  Under the sale-deed the Company agreed to
\npay the price in instalments.  Though the Company paid a few
\ninstalments,  a sum of Rs. 25,00,000. still remained  to  be
\npaid  by it to the joint family.  In July 1961, one  of\t the
\nsons  of Narayanlal Bansilal filed Suit No. 224 of  1964  on
\nthe  Original  Side  of the Bombay High\t Court\tagainst\t his
\nfather\tand  others  for  partition  of\t the  joint   family
\nproperties.   Pending  the suit, on October  20,  1961,\t the
\nCourt,\tin exercise of its powers under O.XL, r. 1,  of\t the
\nCode  of  Civil\t Procedure, appointed a\t Court\tReceiver  as
\nReceiver of all the joint family properties.  Long prior  to
\nthe filing of the said suit for partition, on July 24, 1956,
\nthe Additional Income-tax Officer, Section V, Central Bombay
\nissued\ta  notice to the Company under s. 46 of\t the  Indian
\nIncome\ttax Act, 1922, prohibiting it from paying  the\tdebt
\ndue by it to the joint family and calling upon it to pay the
\nsaid amount to the Income-tax authorities towards income-tax
\ndue  from  the said joint family.  After  the  Receiver\t was
\nappointed,  on\tJune 29, 1962, the said\t Receiver  issued  a
\nnotice under s. 434 of the Indian Companies Act calling upon
\nthe  Company  to pay the amount, due from it  to  the  joint
\nfamily, with interest to the Additional Collector of  Bombay
\ntowards the income-tax dues of the family and also informing
\nit  that,  in case the said payment was not made  within  21
\ndays  of the receipt of the notice, proceedings for  winding
\nup  of the Company under the Indian Companies Act  would  be
\ntaken.\tAs the Company did not comply with the terms of\t the
\nsaid   notice,\tthe  Receiver  moved  the  High\t Court\t for
\ndirections  and\t obtained  an order on\tNovember  22,  1963,
\nauthorizing  him  to file a petition for winding up  of\t the
\nCompany.   After obtaining the permission of the  Court,  on
\nJanuary 10, 1964, the Receiver filed a petition in the\tHigh
\nCourt  for  winding up of the Company.\t After\thearing\t the
\nobjections filed by the Company, Kantawala, J., admitted the
\npetition  and  directed advertisements to be  given  in\t the
\nnewspapers  and\t in the Government  Gazette  mentioning\t his
\norder.\t The Company preferred an appeal against that  order
\nand  that was heard by a division Bench consisting of  Patel
\nand  Tulzapurkar,  JJ.\tThe  learned  Judges  dismissed\t the
\nappeal.\t Hence the present appeal, by special leave.
\nMr. N. C. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant Com-
\npany,  raises  before  us the same  contentions\t which\twere
\nadvanced unsuccessfully on behalf of the Company in the High
\nCourt.\tWe shall deal with the said contentions seriatim.\n<\/p>\n
951<\/span><\/p>\n
The  first  contention of the learned counsel  is  that\t the
\nCourt Receiver had no power to file a petition in the  Court
\nfor winding up of the Company.\tElaborating this  contention
\nthe  learned counsel contends that under O.XL, r.  1(d),  of
\nthe  Code  of Civil Procedure a court can only confer  on  a
\nReceiver  the power to bring a suit and that the  expression
\n“suit”\tdoes  not  take in a petition for winding  up  of  a
\ncompany.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Order  XL,  r.  1.,  of  the  Code  of   Civil
\n\t      Procedure reads
\n\t      Where  it appears to the Court to be just\t and
\n\t      convenient, the Court may by order-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   confer   upon  the\treceiver  all\tsuch
\n\t      powers, as to bringing and defending suits and
\n\t      for  the realization, management,\t protection,
\n\t      preservation and improvement of the  property,
\n\t      the  collection  of  the\trents  and   profits
\n\t      thereof, the application and disposal of\tsuch
\n\t      rents  and  profits,  and\t the  execution\t  of
\n\t      documents as the owner himself has, or such of
\n\t      those powers as the Court thinks fit.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      In  exercise  of\tthe said  power,  the  Court
\n\t      appointed the respondent as the Court Receiver
\n\t      on   October  20,\t 1961,\tof  the\t  properties
\n\t      belonging\t to  the joint family in  the  suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The material part of the order reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court Receiver
\n\t      be  and is hereby appointed’ Recevier  of\t the
\n\t      properties  belonging to the joint  family  in
\n\t      suit and all the books of accounts papers\t and
\n\t      vouchers with all necessary powers under Order
\n\t      XL  Rule\t1  of the Code\tof  Civil  Procedure
\n\t      including\t power to vote and or  exercise\t all
\n\t      the  property  rights  in\t respect  of  shares
\n\t      belonging\t to the joint family in the  several
\n\t      joint stock companies mentioned in the  plaint
\n\t      including\t\tpower\t     to\t\tfile
\n\t      suit…………………………..
\nUnder this order, all the necessary powers under O.XL, r. 1,
\nof  the\t Code  of Civil Procedure were\tconferred  upon\t the
\nReceiver, including the right to file suits.  Assuming\tthat
\na petition for winding up of a company is not a suit  within
\nthe  meaning  of O.XL, r. 1(d) of the said Code,  the  other
\npowers mentioned therein are comprehensive enough to  enable
\nthe  Receiver to take necessary proceedings to\trealise\t the
\nproperty  of and debts due to the joint family.\t Can  it  be
\nsaid that the petition filed by the Receiver for winding  up
\nof the Company is not a mode of realisation of the debt\t due
\nto  the joint family from the Company ? In Palmer’s  Company
\nPrecedents,  Part  11, 1960 Edn., at p.\t 25,  the  following
\npassage appears
\n952<\/span>
\n\t      “A  winding up petition is a perfectly  proper
\n\t      remedy  for enforcing payment of a just  debt.
\n\t      It  is the mode of execution which  the  Court
\n\t      gives  to a creditor against a company  unable
\n\t      to pay its debts.”\n<\/p>\n
This  view  is supported by the decisions in Bowes  v.\tHope
\nLife Insurance and Guarantee Co.(1), Re General Company\t for
\nPromotion  of  Land  Credit(2)\tand  Re\t National  Permanent
\nBuilding Society(3).  It is true that “a winding up order is
\nnot  a\tnormal alternative in the case of a company  to\t the
\nordinary  procedure for the realisation of the debts due  to
\nit”;  but nonetheless it is a form of  equitable  execution.
\nPropriety  does not affect the power but only its  exercise.
\nIf  so, it follows that in terms of cl. (d) of r. 1 of\tO.XL
\nof  the\t Code  of Civil Procedure, a  Receiver\tcan  file  a
\npetition for winding up of a company for the realisation  of
\nthe  properties, movable and immovable, including debts,  of
\nwhich  he  was appointed the Receiver.\tIn  this  view,\t the
\nrespondent  had power to file the petition in the Court\t for
\nwinding up of the Company.\n<\/p>\n
That  apart,  under  O.XL, r. 1(d), of\tthe  Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure the Court can also confer on the Receiver such  of
\nthose  powers  as the Court thinks fit.\t It is\timplicit  in
\nthis apparently wide power that it shall be confined to\t the
\nscope  of the Receiver’s administration of the estate.\t If,
\nfor  the  proper and effective management of the  estate  of
\nwhich  the Receiver has been appointed the Court thinks\t fit
\nthat  it  shall confer power on the said  Receiver  to\ttake
\nsteps  for  winding  up of the debtor-company,\tit  must  be
\nconceded  that the Court will have power to  give  necessary
\ndirections to the Receiver in that regard.
\nOn  November 22, 1963, the Receiver obtained the  directions
\nof the Court empowering him to file the winding-up  petition
\nagainst the Company.  But, it is contended that the  learned
\nJudge  made that order without prejudice to the\t contentions
\nof  the\t members  of the joint family and that\tone  of\t the
\ncontentions  was that a petition for the winding up  of\t the
\nCompany\t was  not  maintainable\t at  the  instance  of\t the
\nReceiver.    This  reservation,\t no  doubt,   entitles\t the
\nappellant  to raise the plea of the maintainability  of\t the
\npetition by the Receiver for winding up of the Company,\t But
\nit  does not bear on the question of authorization  obtained
\nby the Receiver to file the said petition.  The question  of
\nthe maintainability of the petition will be dealt with by us
\nat  a  later stage of the judgment.  In this view  also\t the
\nReceiver had the power to file the petition before the Court
\nfor.  winding up of the Company.  There are,  therefore,  no
\nmerits in the first contention.\n<\/p>\n
The  second  contention of the learned counsel is  that\t the
\nCourt Receiver is not a “creditor” within the meaning of the
\nrelevant
\n(1) [1865] 11 H.L.C. 388.   (2) [1870] L. R. 5 Ch.  D. 380.
\n(3)  [1869] L.R. 5 Ch.\tD. 309.\n<\/p>\n
953<\/span><\/p>\n
sections   of  the  Indian  Companies  Act.   The   relevant
\nprovisions of the Indian Companies Act read’
\n\t      Section 433.  A company may be wound up by the
\n\t      Court,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (e) if the company is unable to pay its debts.
\n\t      Section 434. (1) A company shall be deemed  to
\n\t      be unable to pay its debts-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   if\t a   creditor,\t by   assigning\t  or
\n\t      otherwise, to whom the company is indebted  in
\n\t      a sum exceeding five hundred rupees then\tdue,
\n\t      has served on the company, by causing it to be
\n\t      delivered\t  at  its  registered\toffice,
\n\t      by  registered  post or  otherwise,  a  demand
\n\t      under  his hand requiring the company  to\t pay
\n\t      the  sum so due and the company has for  three
\n\t      weeks thereafter neglected to pay the sum,  or
\n\t      to secure or compound for it to the reasonable
\n\t      satisfaction of the creditor.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section  439. (1) An application to the  Court
\n\t      for  the winding\tup of a company shall be  by
\n\t      petition\tpresented,subject to the  provisions
\n\t      of this section,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   by any creditor or creditors,  including
\n\t      any  contingent  of  prospective\tcreditor  or
\n\t      creditors.\n<\/p>\n
A combined reading of these provisions indicates that unless
\nthe Court Receiver is a creditor by assignment or  otherwise
\nto  whom  the  company is indebted, he\tcannot\tmaintain  an
\napplication  under s. 439 of the Indian Companies  Act.\t  In
\nsupport\t of the contention that he is not such\ta  creditor,
\nstrong\treliance is placed on the decision in In Re  Sacker,
\nEx Parte Sacker(1).  The facts of that case, as given in the
\nhead-note  are\tas  follows: In an action  in  the  Chancery
\nDivision  a  receiver was appointed to collect\tand  receive
\ngoods  comprised in a charge given to the plaintiffs by\t one
\nof  the\t defendants, including therein any  balance  of\t the
\nproceeds  of the goods so charged in the hands of the  other
\ndefendant.   An order was subsequently made for the  payment
\nby  the\t last-mentioned\t defendant  to\tthe  receiver  of  a
\nspecific sum, being money received by him in respect of\t the
\nproceeds  of  the goods, and comprised in the  charge.\t The
\nCourt of Appeal held that the receiver was not a  “creditor”
\nentitled  to  present  a bankruptcy  petition  against\tsuch
\ndefendant within the meaning of s. 6 of the Bankruptcy\tAct,
\n1883.\tLord Esher, M.R., in coming to the  said  conclusion
\ndescribed the legal status of a receiver thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  petitioner is a receiver.  He is  not  a
\n\t      trustee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      There   is  no  debt  due\t to  him  from\t the
\n\t      appellant.  He could
\n\t      (1)   [1888] L.R. 22 Q.B. 179,183,185,186.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      954<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      not sue for this sum of money in his own\tname
\n\t      either at law or in equity.  Even if he  could
\n\t      by  the authority of the Court sue for  it  in
\n\t      his  own\tname,  is  the\tmoney  due  to\t him
\n\t      personally either at law or in equity?  At law
\n\t      it  is  certainly not.  The debt\twas  due  to
\n\t      another  person for whom he is not a  trustee.
\n\t      The money will not be his when he has got\t it.
\n\t      Would  it be his in equity?  I apprehend\tthat
\n\t      he  would hold it subject to the authority  of
\n\t      the Court, who would deal with it according to
\n\t      the  circumstances of the case, but  certainly
\n\t      not for his benefit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Fry, L.J., said much to the same effect thus:
\n\t      receiver;\t consequently  he  is  not  a\tgood
\n\t      petitioning creditor, and the petition  cannot
\n\t      be maintained.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Lopes, L.J., expressed the same idea thus:
\n\t      “To  constitute a good petitioning  creditor’s
\n\t      debt  the alleged debt must be  certainly\t due
\n\t      and  payable  to the person who  presents\t the
\n\t      petition.\t  There\t is  no\t debt  due  to\tthis
\n\t      receiver.\t He could not maintain an action  of
\n\t      debt for this money in his own name.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This decision, therefore, goes to the extent of holding that
\nthere  is  no  debt due to a receiver either at\t law  or  in
\nequity,\t that he cannot maintain an action of debt  for\t the
\nmoney in his own name and that, therefore, he is not a\tgood
\npetitioning  creditor.\t The  scope  of\t this  decision\t was
\nexplained by the Court of Appeal in In re Macoun (1)  There,
\non  the dissolution of a firm of stock-brokers by the  death
\nof one of the partners, the partnership assets, including  a
\ndebt  to the late firm in respect of certain Stock  Exchange
\ntransactions,  were assigned by the surviving partners to  L
\nfor the purpose of winding up the partnership, and notice of
\nthe  assignment\t was  served on the debtor.   L\t obtained  a
\ndecree\tagainst\t the debtor.  Thereafter,  he  commenced  an
\naction\tin the Chancery Division for the winding up  of\t the
\npartnership, and in that action a receiver was ,appointed of
\nthe partnership assets.\t The receiver took an assignment  of
\nthe  judgment  debt  from  L and  obtained  leave  to  issue
\nexecution.  Thereafter he served a bankruptcy notice on\t the
\ndebtor\tand  ultimately\t presented  a  bankruptcy   petition
\nagainst\t the debtor.  The Court of Appeal held that, as\t the
\nreceiver had obtained an assignment of the judgment debt, he
\nwas  a creditor entitled to present a  bankruptcy  petition.
\nIn the context, when the judgment in In re Sacker’s  case(2)
\nwas pressed upon the Court to come to a contrary conclusion,
\nVaughan Williams, L.J., had this to say in regard
\nto that judgment:\n<\/p>\n
(1)  L. R. [1904] 2 K. B. 700, 703.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1888] L.R. 22 Q.B. 179.\n<\/p>\n
955<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “In these circumstances it seems to me that we
\n\t      ought not to hold the case of In re  Sacker(1)
\n\t      to be an authority for the proposition that  a
\n\t      receiver cannot be a good petitioning creditor
\n\t      even  though the state of things is such\tthat
\n\t      he  could\t maintain an action at law.   It  is
\n\t      plain that Fry L.J. thought that he could; and
\n\t      Lopes L.J. seems to have taken the same  view-
\n\t      that  is, the view that if the  receiver\twere
\n\t      the holder of a bill of exchange he could be a
\n\t      good  petitioning\t creditor.  In\tthe  present
\n\t      case  the receiver happens to be the  assignee
\n\t      of  a  judgment, and I think  that  being\t the
\n\t      assignee\tof  a  judgment he  can\t be  a\tgood
\n\t      petitioning  creditor  even  though  when\t the
\n\t      money  is\t received it is\t recovered  for\t the
\n\t      purpose  of enabling the Court of Chancery  to
\n\t      deal with it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A  comparison of these two decisions leads to the  following
\nlegal  position: If a receiver could maintain an  action  at
\nlaw  or in equity for the recovery of a debt, he would be  a
\ngood  petitioning creditor; and, if he could not,  he  would
\nnot  be one.  In In re Sacker’s case(1) it was not  possible
\nfor  the  receiver to bring an action to  recover  the\tdebt
\neither at law or in equity, whereas in Macoun’s case(2), the
\nreceiver, having obtained the assignment of the debt,  could
\nmaintain  an  action at law for the recovery  of  the  debt.
\nTherefore’, even in England a receiver, who can maintain  an
\naction\tto  recover  a debt, would  be\ta  good\t petitioning
\ncreditor.   In India, the scope of the receiver’s  power  is
\ngoverned  by  the express provisions of the  Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure.  It is common place that a receiver appointed  by
\ncourt  has no estate or interest himself and the  scope\t of.
\nhis  Power is defined by the provisions of O.XL of the\tsaid
\nCode and the specific- orders made by the Court\t thereunder.
\nHe  is frequently spoken to as the “hand of the Court”.\t  In
\nexercise  of  the power under the said cl. (d)\tif  a  court
\nconfers\t upon the receiver power to bring a suit to  realise
\nthe  assets  which are the subject-matter of  the  suit,  it
\ncannot\tbe denied that the said receiver can file  suits  to
\nrecover\t the  debts forming part of the said  assets.\tThis
\nCourt in K. V. Malayya v. T. Ramaswami & Co. (3) held that a
\nreceiver  authorized  to file suits to recover\tdebts  could
\ninstitute  suits therefore in his own name.  In that  event,
\nthe  position of such a receiver is analogous to that  of  a
\nreceiver  who  can  file an action in law or  in  equity  to
\nrecover\t a debt under the English law.\tIf the latter  is  a
\ncreditor  in English law in respect of the debt\t recoverable
\nby him, there is no reason why a receiver empowered to\tfile
\na suit under O.XL of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be a
\ncreditor.   In one case there is a voluntary assignment\t and
\nin the other there is  a statutory assignment.
\n(1) [1888] L.R 22 Q.B.179.\n<\/p>\n
(2) L. R. [1904] 2. K. B. 700
\n(3) [1963] 2 M. L. J. 110 (S. C.).\n<\/p>\n
956<\/span><\/p>\n
The  relevant  provisions of the Indian Companies  Act\talso
\nlead to the same position.  Section 434 speaks of a creditor
\nby  assignment or otherwise to whom the company is  indebted
\nin a particular sum.  Such creditor can file a petition\t for
\nwinding\t up  under  S. 439 of the  said\t Act.\tA  creditor,
\ntherefore, under the Indian Companies Act is any person\t who
\nacquires  that\tcharacter by assignment or  otherwise.\t The
\nexpression  “otherwise” takes in any person to whom  another
\nbecomes indebted howsoever the relationship of creditor\t and
\ndebtor\tis brought about between them.\tWe come back to\t the
\nmeaning of the word “creditor”.\t Stroud’s Judicial  Diction-
\nary, 3rd Edn., Vol.  1, defines “creditor” to mean a  person
\nto  whom a debt is payable.  Though this is one of the\tmany
\ndefinitions given in the said dictionary, this appears to be
\nthe appropriate meaning.  A receiver appointed by the  court
\nto  realise a debt can demand the payment of the  debt.\t  If
\nthe  debtor pays the debt to him, he gets a full  discharge;
\nin  default of payment, the receiver can file a suit in\t his
\nown name and obtain a decree.  After obtaining the decree he
\nwill certainly be a judgment-creditor.\tSuch a receiver is a
\nperson\tto  whom a debt is payable by the  debtor.   In\t the
\npresent case, the respondent was authorised to file suits to
\nrealise the assets of the joint family, including the  debt.
\nWe hold that the respondent is a creditor within the meaning
\nof s. 439(1)(b) of the Indian Companies Act and,  therefore,
\nis competent to maintain the petition for winding up of\t the
\nCompany.\n<\/p>\n
It is then contended that the notice issued by the  Receiver
\nwas not in strict compliance with the statutory requirements
\nof s. 434 of the Indian Companies Act.\tTwo main defects are
\npointed\t out,  namely,\tthe  notice  did  not  require\t the
\nappellant  to  pay  the\t debt to the  joint  family  or\t the
\nReceiver  but to the Additional Collector of Bombay and\t the
\nsaid notice put it beyond the reach of the Company to secure
\nor  compound for the debt to the reasonable satisfaction  of
\nthe Court Receiver.  Section 434 of the Indian Companies Act
\nhas been quoted earlier.  Under the section before a company
\nshall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts two conditions
\nmust  be  satisfied,  namely, (i) the  creditor\t shall\thave
\ndelivered  a demand in the prescribed manner on the  company
\nto  pay\t the sum due to him; and (ii) the  company  has\t for
\nthree  weeks  thereafter neglected to pay the  same,  or  to
\nsecure or compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction  of
\nthe  creditor.\tWe have already held that the Receiver is  a
\ncreditor  within the meaning of cl. (a) of s. 434(1) of\t the
\nIndian Companies Act.  In the statutory notice issued by the
\nReceiver  he had called upon the Company to make payment  of
\nRs. 25,00,000\/ to the Additional Collector of Bombay by whom
\nthe  debt had been attached within the prescribed period  of
\n21  days.  He had to do so because the Additional  Collector
\nhad  served a notice dated July 24, 1956, under s.  46(5)(a)
\nof the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, calling upon the Company
\nto pay to him whatever
\n957<\/span>
\namount\twas  held  by the Company on account  of  the  joint
\nfamily.\t Section 434(1)(a) of the Indian Companies Act\tdoes
\nnot say that the demand made by the creditor on the  Company
\nshall be to pay the amount due only to the creditor and\t not
\nto  any other person; nor does it by  necessary\t implication
\nimpose\tany such condition.  What is necessary is  that\t the
\ndebtor by paying the amount demanded shall be in a  position
\nto get full discharge of his liability.\t In the present case
\nthe  Receiver  directed\t the  amount  to  be  paid  to\t the
\nAdditional   Collector\t of  Bombay  for  the\tpurpose\t  of
\nliquidating  the  income-tax payable by\t the  joint  family.
\nIndeed,\t by  paying  the said amount,. and in  view  of\t the
\nnotice served on the Company under s.\t46(5)(a)   of\t the
\nIndian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Company will get a\tfull
\ndischarge  of  its liability to the joint  family.   Section
\n46(5) (a) of the Income-tax Act says that any person  making
\nany  payment  in compliance with a notice.  under  s.  46(5)\n<\/p>\n
(a)shall  be  deemed  to have made  the\t payment  under\t the
\nauthority of the assessee and the receipt of the  Income-tax
\nOfficer shall constitute a good and sufficient discharge  of
\nthe liability of such person to the assessee.  The Receiver,
\ntherefore,  in directing the amount to be paid to the  Addi-
\ntional Collector of Bombay did not do anything in derogation
\nof  the provisions of s. 434(1)(a) of the  Indian  Companies
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
Nor  are  there\t any  merits  in  the  second  link  of\t the
\ncontention.   The question is whether, if  proceedings\twere
\ntaken  against the Company under s. 46(5)(a) of\t the  Indian
\nIncome-tax Act, the Company was deprived of the\t opportunity
\nto  pay\t the  sum  due to the respondent  or  to  secure  or
\ncompound  for  it  to the  reasonable  satisfaction  of\t the
\ncreditor  within the meaning of s. 434(1)(a) of\t the  Indian
\nCompanies Act.\tAfter the statutory notice the Company could
\npay  the  sum demanded or secure or compound for it  to\t the
\nreasonable  satisfaction of the creditor.  The section\tdoes
\nnot  confer  a\tright  on a debtor but\tonly  gives  him  an
\nopportunity  to\t discharge the debt in one or other  of\t the
\nways mentioned therein.\t The debtor could secure or compound
\nfor  a\tdebt only where the circumstances  under  which\t the
\ndemand is made permit such a mode of discharge.\t But whereas
\nin this case both the debtor and the creditor were under  an
\nobligation  to\tdischarge the income-tax dues  and,  as\t the
\ncreditor directed the debtor to pay the entire amount due to
\nhim  towards the income-tax dues, there is no scope for\t the
\ndebtor to approach the creditor for securing or\t compounding
\nhis  claim.   In  this\tview, no right\tof  the\t Company  is
\nviolated,  as it has done under s. 434(1)(a) of\t the  Indian
\nCompanies  Act.\t  That\tapart, s.  46(5)(a)  of\t the  Indian
\nIncome-tax  Act\t does not in terms prevent the\tdebtor\tfrom
\ncompounding  his claim with the creditor.  It  only  directs
\nhim  to hold the money for or on account of the assessee  to
\npay to the Income-tax Officer.\tBut, if in contravention  of
\nthe notice issued to him, the debtor pays the said money  to
\nthe creditor, he will be personally liable to the extent  of
\nthe liability discharged or to the extent of
\n958<\/span>
\nthe  tax and penalties, whichever is less.   The  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t can  also  proceed against the debtor,\t as  if\t the
\namount in respect whereof the notice was issued was attached
\nby the Collector in exercise of his powers under the proviso
\nto sub-s. (2) of S. 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act.   These
\nprovisions  do not prevent the debtor from  compounding\t his
\nclaim  with  the creditor.  If he compounds the\t claim,\t any
\nagreement  entered  into by him with the creditor  will\t not
\naffect\this liability to pay the income-tax of the  creditor
\nto  the extent covered by the notice issued under  S.  46(5)\n<\/p>\n
(a) of the Income-tax Act; but the agreement would certainly
\nbe binding between the creditor and the debtor.\t The Income-
\ntax  Officer  has  no  concern with  it.   In  either  view,
\ntherefore, the notice cannot be said to have been issued  in
\ncontravention  of  the\tprovisions of S.  434(1)(a)  of\t the
\nIndian\tCompanies Act.\tNo doubt courts have held’,  in\t our
\nview rightly, that a statutory notice under s. 434(1)(a)  of
\nthe  Indian  Companies Act shall strictly  comply  with\t the
\nprovisions of the said section: see Japan Cotton Trading Co.
\nLtd.  v.  Jajodia Cotton Mills, Ltd.(1);  Kureshi  v.  Argus
\nFootwear  Ltd.(2); and W. T. Henley’s Telegraphs Works\tCo.,
\nLtd.,  Calcutta\t v.  Gorakhpur Electric\t Supply\t Co.,  Ltd.,
\nAllahabad(3).  But in this case the statutory notice  issued
\nby the respondent did not violate any of the requirements of
\nthe Section.  We, therefore, reject this contention.
\nThe next contention is that the appellant had not  neglected
\nto pay the sum to the respondent, as the said amount must be
\ndeemed to have been attached by the Collector in exercise of
\nhis  powers under the proviso to sub-s.(2) of s. 46  of\t the
\nIndian Income-tax Act, 1922.  In support of this  contention
\nreliance  is placed upon In re European Banking\t Company  Ex
\nParte  Baylis  (1).   There, a petition\t was  presented\t for
\nwinding-up  of a Banking Company for a debt of pound 65\t due
\nto  the\t petitioner; but the said debt was attached  in\t the
\nLord  Mayor’s  Court.\tThe petition was  dismissed  on\t the
\nground\tthat,  though the attachment did not  absolutely  do
\naway with the debt, it seized the debt into the hands of the
\nLord  Mayor’s  Court. in that case the demand was  that\t the
\ndebtor should pay the amount to the petitioning creditor and
\nbecause\t of  the attachment of that amount by  Lord  Mayor’s
\nCourt  the debtor could not pay the amount to the  creditor.
\nBut  that  judgment cannot possibly be of any  help  to\t the
\nappellant,  for in the instant case the Receiver  asked\t the
\ndebtor\tto  pay the amount due to the joint  family  to\t the
\nAdditional  Collector,\tBombay, towards the  income-tax\t due
\nfrom the joint family.\tThe debtor was not only not asked to
\ndo some thing which was legally prohibited but was asked  to
\ncomply\twith the Collector’s requisition under S. 46 of\t the
\nIndian\tIncome-tax Act, 1922.  By not doing so, the  Company
\nclearly neglected to pay the amount within the meaning of s.
\n434 of the Indian Companies Act.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1926] 1.I.R. 54 Cal. 345.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.I.R. 1936 All. 840.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.I.R. 1931 Rang. 306.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  [1866] L.R. 2 Eq. 521.\n<\/p>\n
959<\/span><\/p>\n
Lastly\tit is argued that there was a bona fide\t dispute  in
\nrespect of the liability of the Company to the joint family.
\nIt is said that the Company’s case was that the debt was due
\nto four individuals mentioned in the conveyance, namely, the
\nfather\tand his three sons, whereas the Receiver’s case\t was
\nthat the amount was due to the joint family and,  therefore,
\nin  the\t circumstances it cannot be said  that\tthe  Company
\nneglected  to  pay  the amount to the Receiver.\t  In  W.  T.
\nHenley’s  Telegraph Works Co., Ltd., Calcutta  v.  Gorakhpur
\nElectric Supply Co., Ltd., Allahabad(1) it was ruled that  a
\nmere service of notice of demand of debt by a creditor on  a
\nsolvent company did not entitle the creditor to a winding-up
\norder if the company bona fide disputed the existence of the
\ndebt.\tIn that case it was found that there was a  bonafide
\ndispute between the parties and that the notice issued was a
\nvehicle\t of  oppression and an abuse of the process  of\t the
\nCourt.\tBut the same cannot be said in the present case.  In
\nIn  re\tGold Hill Mines(2) also a  winding-up  petition\t was
\ndismissed on the finding that it was an abuse of the process
\nof  the\t Court, it being a petition to compel payment  of  a
\nsmall debt which was under bona fide dispute.
\nIn  the present case, Narayanlal Bansilal was not  only\t the
\nkarta  of the joint family but was also the Chairman of\t the
\nBoard of Directors of the Company.  In the partition suit he
\nfiled an affidavit wherein he stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Referring  to para 10(c) of the\taffidavit  I
\n\t      deny there is any manipulation in the  balance
\n\t      sheet  of\t Harinagar  Sugar  Mills  Ltd.,\t  as
\n\t      falsely  sought  to be suggested by.  the\t 3rd
\n\t      defendant.   No  loan of Rs.  25,00,000\/-\t has
\n\t      been  given  by me to the said  company.\t The
\n\t      said  amount  is the balance of  the  purchase
\n\t      price payable by the said company to the joint
\n\t      family in respect of Harinagar Cane Farm.”
\n\t      In  view of the said affidavit it is  manifest
\n\t      that the alleged dispute was not bonafide\t but
\n\t      was only a part of a scheme of collusion\tbet-
\n\t      ween  the Company and the karta of  the  joint
\n\t      family.\tThere are, therefore, no  merits  in
\n\t      any of the contentions raised by the Company.
\n\t      In  the  result,\tthe  appeal  fails  and\t  is
\n\t      dismissed with costs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Appeal dismissed.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   A.I.R. 1936 Au. 840.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   (1833) L.R. 23 Ch.\tD. 210.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      M12Sup.  CI.166-2,500-11-2-67-GIPF.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1707, 1966 SCR (3) 948 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: M. W. PRADHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/03\/1966 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. RAMASWAMI, V. SHELAT, J.M. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHarinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1966-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-24T17:24:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-24T17:24:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966\"},\"wordCount\":4995,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966\",\"name\":\"Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-24T17:24:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-24T17:24:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966","datePublished":"1966-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-24T17:24:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966"},"wordCount":4995,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966","name":"Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-24T17:24:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harinagar-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-m-w-pradhan-on-21-march-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211456"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211456\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}