1930 (2) TMI 15 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the dispositions of the company's property to the Industrial Bank, the Imperial Bank, and Dungershi Harilal under Section 227(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
2. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to validate these dispositions.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the Dispositions
The primary issue revolves around the validity of the dispositions of the company's property made after the commencement of the winding-up process, which began on June 12, 1924, when the Industrial Bank filed a petition for compulsory winding-up. The relevant legal provision, Section 227(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, states that every disposition of the property of the company made after the commencement of the winding-up shall be void unless the court orders otherwise.

1. Industrial Bank: The Industrial Bank obtained security of Rs. 1,00,000 in Whittle debentures on July 31, 1924. The disposition was made after the commencement of the winding-up and converted the Industrial Bank from an unsecured to a secured creditor without any fresh consideration.

2. Imperial Bank: The Imperial Bank received Rs. 2,00,000 in Whittle debentures on July 26, 1924. This transaction was allegedly in pursuance of an agreement dated July 24, 1924, and was confirmed by a directors' resolution on July 28, 1924.

3. Dungershi Harilal: Dungershi received Rs. 25,000 in Whittle debentures on July 31, 1924, also converting him from an unsecured to a secured creditor without any fresh consideration.

Issue 2: Court's Discretion to Validate Dispositions
The court must decide whether to validate these dispositions under Section 227(2) by considering if they were bona fide and in the ordinary course of business, and whether they were necessary to gain time for the company to consider schemes of arrangement or sale as a going concern.

1. Industrial Bank: The court found that the Industrial Bank, being the petitioning creditor, utilized its petition to secure an advantage, which is against the principle of pari passu distribution among creditors. The bank's refusal to accept the debentures on July 24, 1924, but acceptance on July 31, 1924, to gain time was not sufficient to validate the transaction. The court concluded that the Industrial Bank should not be allowed to retain the security as it would undermine the principle of equal distribution among creditors.

2. Imperial Bank: The court noted that the Imperial Bank was not the petitioning creditor and had acted in the ordinary course of business by securing its advances. However, the court found that the disposition was not necessary for the company's survival and that the Imperial Bank could have sought the court's approval at the time. The court held that the disposition was not bona fide in the ordinary course of business and should not be validated, emphasizing the need for equal treatment of all creditors.

3. Dungershi Harilal: Dungershi provided no explanation for the transaction and did not respond to the liquidator's inquiries. The court found that the transaction was not in the ordinary course of business and was not necessary for the company's operations. The court held that Dungershi should not be allowed to retain the security, as it would violate the principle of equal distribution among creditors.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that none of the dispositions to the Industrial Bank, the Imperial Bank, and Dungershi Harilal should be validated under Section 227(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The court emphasized the fundamental principle of pari passu distribution among creditors and the need for transparency and fairness in the winding-up process. The appeals by the liquidator were allowed, and the orders validating the dispositions were set aside. The respondents were directed to return the securities and bear the costs of the proceedings.

← Previous Next →