9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of sections 518, 553, 555, and 511 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the context of a members' voluntary winding up. Determination of whether moneys deposited by the liquidator in a scheduled bank for a company in liquidation fall under the purview of section 555(1)(a) of the Act. Analysis of whether the term "dividend" as used in the Act encompasses the moneys held by the liquidator pending settlement of differences among heirs-at-law. Assessment of the liquidator's obligations in light of the decree passed by the court and the Registrar of Companies' directive to pay the moneys into the company's liquidation account. Detailed Analysis: The judgment before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involves applications made under section 518 of the Companies Act, 1956, concerning the liquidation of a company. The liquidator sought directions regarding an amount of Rs. 80,500 realized during the liquidation process, which was payable to a creditor of the company, late Raja Venkata Mutyam Rao. The moneys were invested in a scheduled bank as per the Act's requirements (section 553) and were subject to disputes among the heirs-at-law of late Mutyam Rao, resolved through arbitration and a subsequent court decree (para 1-2). The main issue addressed by the court was whether the moneys held by the liquidator in a special banking account opened under section 553 would fall under section 555(1)(a) of the Act, which pertains to unpaid dividends payable to creditors. The liquidator was uncertain about the applicability of section 555(1)(a) and sought clarification from the court (para 3-4). The court delved into the interpretation of the term "dividend" within the Act, distinguishing its application in the context of running companies and companies in liquidation. It noted that dividends in liquidation are declared by the liquidator and come from the assets of the company, as opposed to running companies where they are declared by the company itself. Specific provisions and rules governing winding up of solvent companies were also considered in the analysis (para 5-7). The liquidator argued that the moneys in question did not constitute unclaimed dividends and were being held pending settlement of disputes among heirs-at-law, thus not falling under section 555(1)(a). Conversely, the Registrar of Companies contended that all moneys payable to creditors should be considered dividends as per the scheme outlined in section 511 of the Act (para 8-9). The court ultimately held that the moneys in question did not come under the purview of section 555(1)(a) as they did not meet the criteria of unpaid dividends declared for six months. It emphasized the specific definitions and contexts within the Act, concluding that the liquidator could proceed with his duties under section 512 without the need for specific directions (para 10-12).
|
