9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the application filed by the official liquidator is maintainable without obtaining leave from the Bombay High Court, which appointed a court receiver in a suit involving the same parties. Analysis: The judgment addresses a preliminary objection raised by the State Bank of India regarding the maintainability of the application filed by the official liquidator without obtaining leave from the Bombay High Court, which had appointed a court receiver in a related suit. The official liquidator sought possession of leased premises due to alleged breaches by the lessee, Podar Mills Ltd. The respondents contended that the court receiver appointed by the Bombay High Court was a necessary party. The court acknowledged the appointment of a court receiver by the Bombay High Court concerning Podar Mills Ltd. and its Jaipur undertakings. The court held that, under the Companies Act, the official liquidator is responsible for the company's assets upon a winding-up order. The court emphasized that a receiver can only be appointed with the court's permission for assets in the liquidator's control. The judgment cited legal precedents to support the requirement of obtaining leave to sue a court receiver, even if not explicitly mandated by law. The court directed the official liquidator to implead the court receiver as a respondent and obtain leave from the Bombay High Court to continue proceedings against the receiver. In conclusion, the court allowed the official liquidator's application to implead the court receiver as a respondent and instructed the official liquidator to seek leave from the Bombay High Court to proceed with the case against the receiver.
|
