9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application for order under section 265 of the Act of 1948 without settlement of list of contributories. Analysis: The judgment by Buckley, J. dealt with an application for an order under section 265 of the Act of 1948 without settling the list of contributories. The case involved the compulsory winding up of a company due to insolvency, resulting in a surplus available for distribution among members. The company had a class of preference shares with specific rights, and the liquidator sought to make payments to shareholders without settling the list of contributories. The court had to determine whether to dispense with the settlement of the list under section 257(1) of the Companies Act, 1948. The court's jurisdiction to dispense with the list arises when no calls need to be made or rights of contributories adjusted. The settlement process involves sending notices to contributories and can be costly. The court must consider subsequent steps in the winding up process before deciding on dispensation. The judgment referenced section 265 of the Act, which mandates adjusting contributories' rights and distributing any surplus among entitled persons. A previous case highlighted the necessity of a court order before the liquidator could distribute assets, emphasizing the importance of ascertaining rightful recipients. Rule 120 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules, 1949, outlines requirements for authorizing the liquidator to make returns to contributories, including preparing a schedule with recipient details. The court must ensure proper evidence supports the application for an order under section 265, indicating the correct recipients of distributed funds. In this specific case, the liquidator aimed to distribute a large class of shares without settling the list of contributories thoroughly. The court expressed concerns about unregistered share transfers and the need to verify the rightful recipients of distributions. While rules primarily address partly paid shares, all entitled persons must be considered contributories. The court emphasized the importance of settling the list to uncover any undisclosed information, especially in cases with numerous shareholders or unregistered share transfers. The judgment stressed the significance of following formalities to ensure proper distribution and avoid potential discrepancies. Ultimately, the court decided not to dispense with the settlement of the list in this case, emphasizing the need to adhere to the rules and proceed accordingly. The judgment highlighted the complexities involved in verifying rightful recipients, especially in cases with a significant number of shareholders and potential undisclosed information. The decision underscored the importance of following prescribed procedures to ensure accurate distribution of assets in a winding up scenario.
|
