High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Sanjay Yadav, Vivek Agrawal, JJ.
VIVEK CONTINENTAL PVT. LTD. - APPELLANT
Versus
O. P. GUPTA (deleted) through Legal Heirs ANKIT RAJ GUPTA & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
Company Appeal No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 30-09-2019
Companies Act - Appointment of Official Liquidator - Section 448, Companies Act, 1956 - Summary: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of section 448 of the Companies Act, 1956, which deals with the appointment of the Official Liquidator. The court found that the procedure prescribed under section 450 of the Act, 1956 had not been adhered to, making the order vulnerable and de hors the mandate of the Act. The court also referred to the decision in Virendrasingh Motilalji Bhandari and others vs. Nandlal Bhandari and sons Pvt. Ltd., Indore, 1978 M.P.L.J. 772, which held that the appointment of a provisional liquidator is a drastic measure and should not be resorted to except in special circumstances. The court set aside the impugned order as it was not sustainable in the eyes of the law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant raised a grievance that the procedure prescribed under section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956 had not been adhered to in the appointment of the Official Liquidator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of the law as it did not adhere to the stipulations contained under section 450 of the Act, 1956.
Issues: The main issue was the non-adherence to the procedure prescribed under section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the appointment of the Official Liquidator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the principles governing the appointment of a provisional liquidator as established in the case law.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order dated 8-7-2019 was set aside.
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Senior counsel with Shri R. S. Dhakar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Praveen Surange, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal under section 10(f) read with section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 and section 303 of the Companies Act, 2013 is directed against the order dated 8-7-2019 passed in Company Petition No. 1/2012. The impugned order is in the following terms :
“The present company petition was admitted on 5-7-2002 since when it is listed time and again for different purposes.
Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that no Official Liquidator has been appointed yet.
In the interest of justice, this Court directs for appointment of Shri Sitaram Gupta as OL in terms of section 448 of Company Act, 1956.
The OL is directed to take necessary steps and to exercise its statutory power under the Company Act, 1956 and Rule framed thereunder to assist this Court to reach this petition to its logical end.
Let copy of this order be served to Shri Ashish Sharashwat who normally appears for OL
List in the week commencing 29th July, 2019.”
Evident it is that the order has been passed by the learned Company Judge in purported exercise of powers under section 448 of Company Act, 1956 (for brevity “Act, 1956”) which envisages :
“448. Appointment of Official Liquidator. – (1) For the purposes of this Act, so far as it relates to the winding up of a company by the Tribunal, there shall be an Official Liquidator who –
(a) may be appointed from a panel of professional firms of chartered accountants, advocates, company secretaries, costs and works accountants or firms having a combination of these professions, which the Central Government shall constitute for the Tribunal; or
(b) may be a body corporate consisting of such professionals as may be approved by the Central Government from time to time ; or
(c) may be a whole-time or a part-time officer appointed by the Central Government :
Provided that, before appointing the Official Liquidator, the Tribunal may give due regard to the views or opinion of the secured creditors and workmen.
(2) The terms and conditions for the appointment of the Official Liquidator and the remuneration payable to him shall be –
(a) approved by the Tribunal for those appointed under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), subject to a maximum remuneration of five per cent of the value of debt recovered and realisation of sale of assets ;
(b) approved by the Central Government for those appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (1) in accordance with the rules made by it in this behalf.
(3) Where the Official Liquidator is an officer appointed by the Central Government under clause (c) of sub-section (1), the Central Government may also appoint, if considered necessary, one or more Deputy Official Liquidators or Assistant Official Liquidators to assist the Official Liquidator in the discharge of his functions, and the terms and conditions for the appointment of such Official Liquidators and the remuneration payable to them shall also be in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government.
(4) All references to the “Official Liquidator” in this Act shall be construed as reference to the Official Liquidator specified in sub-section (1), or to the Deputy Official Liquidator or Assistant Official Liquidator referred to in sub-section (3), as the case may be.
(5) The amount of the remuneration payable shall –
(a) form part of the winding up order made by the Tribunal;
(b) be treated as first charge on the realisation of the assets and be paid to the Official Liquidator or to the Central Government, as the case may be.
(6) The Official Liquidator shall conduct proceedings in the winding up of a company and perform such duties in reference thereto as the Tribunal may specify in this behalf :
Provided that the Tribunal may –
(a) transfer the work assigned from one Official Liquidator to another Official Liquidator for the reasons to be recorded in wr
Virendrasingh Motilalji Bhandari and others vs. Nandlal Bhandari and sons Pvt. Ltd., Indore
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.