Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 1989 (3) TMI HC This
Issues:
1. Suit maintainability of a company under the Companies Act. 2. Appointment of a receiver in a dispute over possession of a vessel. 3. Legality of appointing a company as a receiver. 4. Appropriate appointment of a receiver in the case. Analysis: The judgment involves a dispute regarding the possession of a vessel "Sunshine" between the directors of a company registered under the Companies Act, specifically focusing on the exclusion of one director from participation in fishing operations. The court appointed the company itself as a receiver to manage the vessel and handle the sale proceeds, which was challenged in the appeal. The appellant argued that the suit itself was not maintainable as it involved a company registered under the Companies Act, questioning the maintainability of the interlocutory application as well. However, the court deemed this issue to be decided at the trial stage and focused on the dispute at hand regarding the possession of the vessel "Sunshine" and the exclusion of one director from participation. The court found that the possession of the vessel was taken by the appellant, and the claim of the excluded director was prima facie accepted. The court below appointed the company as a receiver to manage the fishing operations of the vessel, handle finances, and deposit sale proceeds to the credit of the suit. However, the legality of appointing a company as a receiver was challenged based on legal principles regarding receivership in companies. Referring to legal authorities, the court determined that a company is not qualified to be appointed as a receiver of its own property due to its corporate nature. Instead, the court modified the order and appointed the managing director, as named in the company's memorandum and articles of association, as the receiver in place of the company. The court directed the managing director to follow the directions given in the impugned order regarding the management of the vessel and financial matters. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in part with the modification of appointing the managing director as the receiver instead of the company, resolving the issue of the legality of the receiver's appointment in the case without imposing costs on any party involved.
|