S. K. Kapoor, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, against the erstwhile Directors and other officers of the Peoples Insurance Company Limited (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as the company) praying inter alia that the respondents may be ordered to repay and/or restore the money or other property of the company which have been lost to the company due to the acts of misfeasance committed by them. The first respondent, Sardul Singh Caveeshar, has died and the petitioner-company did not press any claim against his estate. The other respondents were directors and/ or officers of the company for the periods given below :- 1. Ram Roop Sharma, respondent No. 2 : Director from 1946 to 1948 and then from 1948 to 1951. IT appears that he was not a Director for a shortwhile in 1948. 2. Manphool Singh, respondent No. 3 : Director from 1947 to 1950. 3. Kartar Singh, respondent No. 4 : Director from 1946 to 1951. 4. Hans Raj Bhalla, Advocate, respondent No. 5 : Director from 1952 to 1954. 5. Tek Chand Dhingra, respondent No. 6 : Director from 1952 to 1954. 6. Sodhbans and Company : Auditors of the Company from 1946 to 1951. 7. Malik Hans Raj, respondent No. 10; Manager from 1946 to 1954. 8. Haridhan Singh, respondent No. 9 : Managing Director from 1943 to 1945 and a Director till 16/3/1946. 9. Shanti Lal Jhaveri, respondent No. 7 : Director from 19/4/1952 to 1/4/1953. 10. R. S. Gupta, respondent No. 8 : Director from 19/4/1952 to 1/4/1953. ( 2 ) BEFORE I proceed to examine the individual cases, it is appropriate to set out the principles governing the grant of relief under section 235. A director or an officer can be held liable under section 235 if he is guilty of act or omission in the nature of a breach of trust resulting in a loss to the company as the term misfeasance is not used in the section in the abstract. It covers every misconduct by an officer for which he might, apart for the section, have been sued. The directors of a company are collectively incharge of and responsible for the management of its affairs. They cannot divest themselves of their responsibility by delegating the powers of management to someone else. It covers every misconduct by an officer for which he might, apart for the section, have been sued. The directors of a company are collectively incharge of and responsible for the management of its affairs. They cannot divest themselves of their responsibility by delegating the powers of management to someone else. in case they delegate their powers and the delegate proves unfaithful, the directors would, except in certain circumstances, be as much liable as if they had themselves been unfaithful. Negligence actionable under section 235 must be such as would make him liable in an action and mere imprudence or error of judgment or want of judgment is not such negligence. Broadly speaking, it is the duty of each director to be vigilant and to assure that the company s assets are properly applied. They must not even certify any documents or accounts without being sure of their correctness. For instance, they are expected to satisfy themselves, before signing a balance-sheet that the value of the company s assets has been correctly shown and depending on blind assurance by one of their colleagues or the auditors may not, subject to certain exceptions, be sufficient. Circumstances do arise where the directors may be justified in placing faith and reliance in one or other of their colleagues in various matters including the valuation of stocks or investments of matters in which it will be normal and convenient for such a colleague of their s to have day-to-day control. One of such cases may be where such a colleague is himself an expert. The Legislature has not formulated precise rules for the guidance in these matters and it is, therefore, undesirable on my part to attempt to do so and each case must turn on its own facts. The wise application of the Act appears to be to hold that amount of check, control and caution to be exercised by a director is a question of degree in each individual case. The achievement of goals for which a corporation is brought into existence would be impossible if people could not trust other for the express purpose of attending to the details of management. The achievement of goals for which a corporation is brought into existence would be impossible if people could not trust other for the express purpose of attending to the details of management. I would, therefore, decline an application under section 235 on the mere ground that the directors trusted regularly authorised officers of the company and failed to detect and have been misled by concealment by such officers when there was no reason for doubting their fidelity. The test in all such cases should be whether there has been an act of commission or omission on the part of the directors amounting to a breach of duty to the company in consequence whereof loss has resulted to the company. It would be a breach of duty if the directors wilfully shut their eyes to the acts of the persons incharge of the management and recklessly sanction such acts thereby aiding misfeasance. It must also be borne in mind that the section is intended to provide a remedy against directors personally guilty of some act of misfeasance and, therefore, there must be a finding against each individual director or officer before he can be held responsible. ( 3 ) A Director or officer of a company would be liable or under section 235 if he has (a) misapplied, (b) retained, (c) become liable or account- able for any money or property of the company or (d) been guilty of any misfeasance or bieach of trust in relation to the company. So far as the liability on the gioing that the officer "has misapplied or retained or become liable or accoantable for any money or property of the company" is concerned, the liability would arise only if such director or officer would be otherwise liable in an action since the section merely provides a summary remedy. The expression "breach of trust in relation to the company" presents no difficulty of interpretation. The expression "misfeasance", in my opinion, includes "non-feasance" and connotes every act or omission resulting in loss to the company which is actionable in law. ( 4 ) IT is in the light of the above principles that I propose to examine the facts of this case and that takes me to the merits and allegations against each respondent individually. The expression "misfeasance", in my opinion, includes "non-feasance" and connotes every act or omission resulting in loss to the company which is actionable in law. ( 4 ) IT is in the light of the above principles that I propose to examine the facts of this case and that takes me to the merits and allegations against each respondent individually. The learned counsel for the petitioner confined his case, so far as respondent Haridhan Singh is concerned, to non-payment of two calls on 3,045 shares originally registered in the name of Sardul Singh Caveeshar, respondent No. 1, and held by the said respondent from 30/9/1940 to 23/7/1946. The said shares were 10 per cent. paid and in 1944 and 1945 two calls of Rs. 10. 00 each were made thereon. The shares were forfeit ed to the company on 23/7/1946. The allegation is that respondent Haridhan Singh did not pay the calls and colluded with other directors in not taking action against him for the enforcement thereof. To quote the words of the learned counsel for the petitioner-company, be said "so far as Haridhan Singh is concerned, the misfeasance is only this that these two calls against the said respondent were not enforced and he also did not do his duty to the company in paying the same and that constituted a breach of trust or breach of duty. " The entire lot of 3,045 shares was, after forfeiture, re-allotted to Manphool Singh Sharma, the third respondent, who, in turn, transferred those shares to various other persons and the petitioner-company made a petition for rectification of register praying interalia that the name of Haridhan Singh respondent be placed on theregister of members with respect to the said shares. That petition, being C. O. 49 of 1958 was dismissed by me on 15/1/1968, Mr. Tuli, the learned counsel for the ninth respondent, contended on the basis of Sri Ram v. Nur Muhammad A. I. R. 1925 Lahore 194, that the section was not meant to be applied for the purpose of enforcing sums due under contracts between the company and other persons, whether such persons happened to be directors or not and the section covered only such breach of duty as was committed by an officer of the company in his capacity as officer resulting in an improper application of the assets or property of the company. It was not disputed at the bar that the said respondent was liable for the calls made during the period he was the registered owner of the shares even after the forfeiture thereof. Before I proceed to answer this question, I consider it proper to point out that in the petition the petitioner-company did not put its claim in that form. Actually two claims only have been made in the petition against the said respondent- (i) that though for non-payment of calls he vacated the office of director yet he continued to draw the salary as managing director till about middle of the year 1946 and, therefore the petitioner- company was entitled to claim this amount; and (ii) that the said shares were forfeited to the petitioner-company fraudulently with a view to relieving him of the unpaid liability on the shares and re- allotted to respondent No. 3 and subsequently shown as fully paid up, thus resulting in a loss of Rs. 3,95,910. 00 to the petitioner-company. As I have said before, I have already declined the petition of the petitioner-company for rectification of the register and rejected the claim of the petitioner-company with respect to the fraudulent forfeiture of the shares. It is, in these circumstances, difficult for me to uphold this claim of the petitioner-company on this ground and the ground urged at the Bar has not been raised in the petition. Apart from that, I have not been able to convince myself to permit such aclaim being entertained under section 235 of the Indian Companies Act. The arrears of calls due are purely contractual obligations and I would, in the absence of very special circumstances, if at all, decline relief for the enforcement of such claims under section 235. Primarily, the obligations to pay arrears of calls arises in the capacity of the person concerned as a shareholder and I do not think resort to section 235 should be permitted for the enforcement of such claims. ( 5 ) THE other claim, as I have already mentioned, against the 9th respondent is regarding remuneration drawn by him as managing director in spite of the fact that he vacated his office as a director on account of non-payment of calls. Mr. ( 5 ) THE other claim, as I have already mentioned, against the 9th respondent is regarding remuneration drawn by him as managing director in spite of the fact that he vacated his office as a director on account of non-payment of calls. Mr. Tuli, the learned counsel for the said respondent, contended that even if he vacated his office he would be entitled to the remunerations on the principles of quantum meruit. It is unnecesary to decide this question as the fact remains that the said respondent was working as managing director and drawing his remuneralion thereof. In such circumstances, it can hardly be termed as misfeasance or breach of trust or misapplication or retention of the property of the company recoverable under section 235. The petition against Haridhan Singh, the 9th respondent, is therefore, rejected. ( 6 ) SO far as Shanti Lal Jhaveri, R. S. Gupta and Hans Raj Bhalla, being respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 5 respectively, are concerned, Mr. K. K. Raizada, the learned counsel for the petitioner-company, was unable to point to any firm or specific allegation against them constituting misfeasance. Short of conceding, the learned counsel plainly said that there did not appear any evidence, much less cogent evidence, on which they could be held responsible. The petition against them also, therefore, fails and is dismissed. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT- No. 11 was the Auditor of the petitioner-company for some time as already mentioned. There are two allegations against him (1) On the date the company went into liquidation the securities belonging to the company were shown in the balance- sheets and account-books at Rs. 22,90,850. 00. As a result of the investigations conducted by the special Police Establishment of the Government of India, it is reported that the securities shown as purchased after the year 1947 were actually never bought except for a paltry sum of Rs. 500. 00. On the other hand, assets of the company in the shape of shares of other joint stock companies of the value of about rupees five lacs, landed property of the value of about Rs. 3,48,000. 00 and surplus cash estimated at about Rs. 3,94,000. 00 were, with the connivance of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, 10 All, converted to the personal use of respondent Nos. 3,48,000. 00 and surplus cash estimated at about Rs. 3,94,000. 00 were, with the connivance of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, 10 All, converted to the personal use of respondent Nos. I to 3 and their friends and associates and it was merely to cover this misappropriation that an increase in the value of the Government securities was shown in the books and the balance-sheets of the company. This action was manipulated by false entries in the account books of the company and screened and covered by fabricating and forging false bank certificates for submission to the Controller of Insurance; and (2) respondents I to 3 floated a number of joint stock companies and invested large amounts of company s funds therein in the shape of shares and advances. After mis-appropriating the funds invested in these companies, the latter were either sent into voluntary liquidation or allowed to die their own death. The said respondents I to 3 also created false and fictitious credits either in their own names or in the names of their friends in the books of the company and then paid the same out of the funds of the company thus causing a loss of about rupees ten lacs and all this was done with the active support and conni- vance of the said respondent No. 11. ( 8 ) IT is worthy of note that the allegations are not supported by any precise particulars and even the dates of various acts constituting misfeasance have not been given. There may be difficulties in the way of the petitioner-company in making more precise allegation. I point- ediy asked Mr. Raizada, the learned counsel for the petitioner-company, as to what was the basis of allegations against the said respondent and he said (i) the said respondent should have conducted a physical check of the securities which would have disclosed that they had not been purchased; and (ii) he should have been more vigilant in checking the books of account and if that vigilance had been brought to bear in the course of audit, he would have discovered that the funds of the company were recklessly misapplied. Mr. Raizada expressed inability to give more precise facts particularly as, according to him, the books and records of the company were no longer available. Mr. Raizada expressed inability to give more precise facts particularly as, according to him, the books and records of the company were no longer available. It is of utmost importance in these cases to bear in mind that an applicant who seeks under section 235 of the Indian Companies Act to establish a case ofmisfeasance it is necessary for him to give evidence of all the lements that go to make up that misfeasance. Difficulties in leading evidence or establishing facts can never constitute a substitute for the proof and the burden in such an application lies undoubtedly on the applicant. The learned counsel for the petitioner-company said that securities of the company were pledged with the National Bank to facilitate opening of a letter of credit by Sardul Singh Caveeshar for his personal business of import of cycles and blankets. The said securities were sold and the sale proceeds adjusted against the money due to the Punjab National Bank. My attention was invited to the statement of D. D. Chopra, P. W. I, who said- "there is another letter, dated 28/6/1952, addressed by Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar (whose signatures I identify) on behalf of the People s Insurance Company Limited to the Liquidators of the New Hindustan Bank Limited giving details of the securities worth Rs. 9,23,700. 00 which had been pledged by the Bank with the Punjab National Bank Limited. (copy of this letter is Exhibit Public Witness 1/12 ). According to my enquiries these securities of the company which were pledged with the Punjab National Bank Limited through the New Hindustan Bank Limited were ultimately sold by the Punjab National Bank on order to adjust the loans advanced by that Bank to the New Hindustan Bank on the security of these Government securities. Apart from these securities, according to my enquiries, there were no other securities with the company and all the entries with regard to the securities in the balance- sheets were bogus. " ( 9 ) HE further stated that securities worth about Rs. 2,00,000. 00 deposited with the Reserve Bank of India, were the only securities which came into the hands of the Official Liquidator. Exhibit Public Witness 1/12, which is a letter dated 28/6/1952, shows that securities of the amount of Rs. 9,23,700. 00 were pledged with the Punjab National Bank Limited. 2,00,000. 00 deposited with the Reserve Bank of India, were the only securities which came into the hands of the Official Liquidator. Exhibit Public Witness 1/12, which is a letter dated 28/6/1952, shows that securities of the amount of Rs. 9,23,700. 00 were pledged with the Punjab National Bank Limited. Similarly, Exhibit Public Witness 1/13, is the statement of Government securities pledged in the account of the New Hindustan Bank Limited and that statement does show that proceeds of certain securities were credited to the letter of credit account in 1949, 1950 and 1952. Again, Public Witness 11, Ram Roop Sharma respondent, admitted having endorsed securities of the value of Rs. 27,100. 00 in favour of the Puniab National Bank and that the pledge was not for any loan taken by the petitioner company. He was asked "was the money drawn against these securities by the People s Insurance Company?" and he replied:- "no. The money represented by the pledge was not actually drawn. What happened was that a letter of credit was opened by the Punjab National Bank Limited in favour of Caveeshar and Company, which was in existence in 1946-47 and which was owned by Sardul Singh Caveeshar himself, for the import of cycles and blankets. But the amount under the letter of credit represented on 5 per cent of the finances required for the business of cycles and blankets. The cycles and blankets of the value of about rupees two lacs were imported by Caveeshar and Co. and these were also pledged with the bank. " ( 10 ) P. W. 10, Bodh Rai, Manager, Pakistan Branches in New Delhi, proved the statement Exhibit Public Witness 1/13 but he was unable to say at whose instructions were the securities disposed of. Sodhbans himself appeared as Public Witness 7. He stated that he did not physically check the securities as the usual practice was to rely on the certificate furnished by the management of the company as to in whose keeping the said securities were. The staff of the Chartered Accountant, which goes out for inspection, check the securities only if there is a suspicion and the head of the firm of Chartered Accountant usually relies on the senior member of the staff. In the balance-sheet for the year ended 31/12/1947, there is a note appended reading- "government papers of the face-value of Rs. 10,48,700. The staff of the Chartered Accountant, which goes out for inspection, check the securities only if there is a suspicion and the head of the firm of Chartered Accountant usually relies on the senior member of the staff. In the balance-sheet for the year ended 31/12/1947, there is a note appended reading- "government papers of the face-value of Rs. 10,48,700. 00 amounting to Rs. 10,48,620. 00 are said to have been lodged With the New Hindustan Bank Limited. The certificate of the bank has not been shown to us. We understand that these securities have already been transferred in company s account with the Punjab National Bank Limited, Delhi. " ( 11 ) A considerable suspicion surrounds the matter and I am certainly inclined to say that the Auditor could have been more vigilant. But the evidence before me is too meagre to entitle me to hold that the claim of the petitioner-company against the Auditor stands established. I admit, there may be considerable material for suspicion but obviously for such a case as the petitioner-company seeks to establish much more is necessary. Though it is the primary function of the Auditor to check and assure himself that the assets shown in the books of the company do actually exist yet that is not an absolute and unqualified rule. An auditor may, in given circumstances, place faith and reliance on the certificate furnished by the Management. What is necessary is to see whether or not there were grounds for suspicion necessitating physical check or whether, if the Auditor had acted diligently, the suspicion would have come to surface thereby obliging him to make a physical check. No suchcircumstances have been brought to light in this case and, without deciding whether or not the Auditor did his duty, I hold that the case of the petitioner-company against the Auditor fails for lack of adequate evidence and allegations. ( 12 ) THAT takes me to the claim against Ram Roop Sharma respondent for the alleged loss of securities. Some salient aspects I have already discussed while dealing with the case against Sodhbans. From the evidence it emerges that Ram Roop Sharma endorsed the securities worth Rs. 27,100. ( 12 ) THAT takes me to the claim against Ram Roop Sharma respondent for the alleged loss of securities. Some salient aspects I have already discussed while dealing with the case against Sodhbans. From the evidence it emerges that Ram Roop Sharma endorsed the securities worth Rs. 27,100. 00 in favour of the Punjab National Bank; that the endorsement was made for pledging the said securities with the Punjab National Bank in connection with a letter of credit account to be opened in favour of Sardul Singh Caveeshar; that these securities were sold by the Punjab National Bank and adjusted against that amount; and that the petitioner-company did not get these securities. Though it does appear that there were certain other securities which were lost to the company but there is no cogent evidence connecting Ram Roop Sharma respondent with the loss thereof. On no process of reasoning could Ram Roop Sharma, who was conversant fully with the affairs of the company be held justified in participating in the pledge of the company s properties for facilitating a loan being given to a director. The circumstances raised an obligation on Ram Roop Sharma to explain why and how the securities were pledged but he has failed to do so. This clearly constitutes misfeasance within section 235 of the Indian Companies Act. After the entire evidence was over, arguments heard and judgment reserved. Ram Roop Sharma made two successive applications asking for permission to place further evidence on the record showing that the securities were actually received and utilised by the company in the purchase of certain shares. Those applications were declined by me and the unescapable conclusion on the material on the record is that Ram Roop Sharma is liable to compensate the petitioner- company for Rs. 27,100. 00. The claim of the petitioner-company against Ram Roop Sharma to that extent is allowed. ( 13 ) THE next claim is against Malik Hans Raj, respondent No. 10, for Rs. 2,74,500. 00. Malik Hans Raj was the Manager of the petitioner- company from 1946 to 1954. He signed documents marked Exhibits P. W. 1/15, Public Witness 1/16, and Public Witness 1/17. Exhibit Public Witness 1/15 is a voucher dated 21/12/1946. By the said voucher a sum of Rs. 3,80,000. 00 was debited to the New Hindustan Bank Limited, Lahore "as per Pass Book entry dated 21/12/1946". He signed documents marked Exhibits P. W. 1/15, Public Witness 1/16, and Public Witness 1/17. Exhibit Public Witness 1/15 is a voucher dated 21/12/1946. By the said voucher a sum of Rs. 3,80,000. 00 was debited to the New Hindustan Bank Limited, Lahore "as per Pass Book entry dated 21/12/1946". The said amount was utilised as under:- RS. 53,800. 00 on account of calls due on shares by Sardul Singh Caveeshar, Sharbati Devi, Manphool Singh, Ram Roop Sharma and some others; RS. 3,22,800. 00 credited to various shareholders such as Sardul Singh, Sharbati Devi, Manphool Singh, Ram Roop Sharma as calls in advance; and RS. 3,400. 00 credited to Sharbati Devi in the suspense account. ( 14 ) EXHIBIT Public Witness 1/16 is a voucher dated 31/7/1946 whereby Sharbati Devi was debited with the amount of Rs. 71,600 on the basis of her letter and. the amount utilised towards calls due on shares inter alia by the afore-said four persons. Exhibit Public Witness 1/17 is again a voucher dated 31/7/1946-whereby Rs. 2,34,948. 00 were credited to Sharbati Devi, being the price of Naville Lodge and other house and landed property alleged to have- been purchased from her. This amount was utilised as under :- RS. 1,48,048. 00 adjusted against the loan amount of Sharbati Devi and the balance credited to her. ( 15 ) EXHIBIT Public Witness 1/14 is a letter from the New Hindustan Bank Limited addressed to the petitioner-company advising that the account of the company had been credited with Rs. 3,80,000. 00. The case of the petitioner-company is that Sharbati Devi owned no such property and it was all a bogus transaction to create a credit balance in her favour with a view to utilizing the money for adjusting arrears of calls on shares. The learned counsel for the petitioner-company said that Manphool Singh was also liable to make good this amount of Rs. . 2,74,400. 00 being the amount alleged to have been falsely credited towards the arrears of calls. Mr. Raizada also said that if these persons had been more vigilant, the petitioner-company would not have lost this amount which represents the unpaid calls and still remains unrecovered. The learned counsel informed me that the petitioner-company has already got a decision in its favour holding that these calls had in fact not been paid and proceedings for recovery are pending in Court. The learned counsel informed me that the petitioner-company has already got a decision in its favour holding that these calls had in fact not been paid and proceedings for recovery are pending in Court. So far as Manphool Singh is concerned, he signed Exhibit Public Witness 1/14 but he was not a director in 1946 and, therefore no liability can attach to him. Prem Singh, Public Witness 2, worked as Accountant in the company from 1946 till the partition of the country. He prepared the voucher Exhibit Public Witness 1/14 and said that he did so on the advice received from the New Hindustan Bank Limited, dated 21/12/1946 crediting Rs. 3,80,000. 00 to the company. He also prepared the vouchers Exhibits P. W. 1/15, Public Witness 1/16 and Public Witness 1/17 -. He said that these vouchers were initialled by Malik Hans Raj. This respondent has not been shown to be in the know of the entire details of the transactions alleged to be illegal and manipulated by the management. After all, the vouchers were prepared by an Accountant and there was an advice by the bank crediting Rs. 3,80,000. 00. Mr. Raizada drew my attention to the admission by Sharbati Devi that she never owned the property and knew nothing about the same. She also said that she did not borrow any amount. That may be so, but it does not fix Malik Hans Raj with the liability with which he is sought to beburdened. Nothing has been shown to exist which could arouse the suspicion of this respondent to probe deeper into the matter before signing the vouchers- etc. I would, in the circumstances, hold that the petitioner-company has failed to establish its claim against Malik Hans Raj. ( 16 ) THE last claim is based on documents Exhibit Public Witness 1/2, Public Witness 1/3, P. W. 1/4, Public Witness 1/5, Public Witness 1/6 and Public Witness 1/8. The claim is that a sum of Rs. 3,25,000. 00 was wrongly refunded to Sardul Singh Caveeshar as evidenced by resolution dated 24/10/1954, Exhibit Public Witness 1/6. By resolution dated 27/6/1953, Exhibit Public Witness I/i, it was decided that for complying with the resolution dated 27/10/1950, it was necessary that the Board of Directors should arrange to contribute Rs. 1,48,000. 00 to the funds of the company. 3,25,000. 00 was wrongly refunded to Sardul Singh Caveeshar as evidenced by resolution dated 24/10/1954, Exhibit Public Witness 1/6. By resolution dated 27/6/1953, Exhibit Public Witness I/i, it was decided that for complying with the resolution dated 27/10/1950, it was necessary that the Board of Directors should arrange to contribute Rs. 1,48,000. 00 to the funds of the company. Resolution dated 31/12/1953, Exhibit Public Witness 1/2, shows that Sardul Singh Caveeshar offered a free cash gift of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 to the petitioner-company and the petitioner-company accepted the same. It appears from resolutions Exhibits Public Witness 1/3 and Public Witness 1/4 dated 28/3/1954, and 28/8/1954, respectively, that Sardul Singh Caveeshar offered further free cash gift of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 that is Rs. 75,000. 00 on each occasion. According to Exhibit Public Witness 1/5, a resolution dated 29/9/1954, Sardul Singh offered steel and other free cash gift of Rs. 75,000 and the resolution dated 24/10/1954 Exhibit Public Witness 1/6, shows that Rs. 3,25,000. 00 were refunded to Sardul Singh Caveeshar without interest. It is for this refund that the petitioner-company seeks to make Tek Chand Dhingra. respondent No. 6, liable. Tek Chand Dhingra was not present in the meeting in which the amount was decided to be refunded. Though originally Mr. Raizada did not specifically press any claim against Caveeshar as the learned counsel said that he has died and there was no chance of any recovery from him but when he came to this item he did faintly mention that even Caveeshar s estate will be liable for this amount. Apart from the fact that no cogent evidence has been brought in proof of the fact that this amount ought not, or could not, have been refunded, there is no firm allegations in the petition justifying entertainment of this claim. This claim of the petitioner-company also fails. ( 17 ) NOTHING particular was said against Kartar Singh by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 18 ) IN the circumstances, the petition is allowed to the extent that Ram Roop Sharma is held liable to compensate the petitioner-company to the extent of Rs. 27,100. 00. The petition against other respondents is dismissed but the parties will bear their own costs.