9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application for permission to implead official liquidator as party-respondent in a claim petition pending before the Additional Labour Court. Interpretation of section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding the requirement of court's leave to proceed with legal proceedings against a liquidated company. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application seeking permission to involve the official liquidator, High Court, Madras, as a party-respondent in a claim petition before the Additional Labour Court. The application was filed by a laborer of a liquidated company under the administration of the official liquidator, invoking section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The official liquidator contended that obtaining court sanction to proceed against the liquidated company is a prerequisite, while the applicant argued otherwise. The applicant had filed the claim petition subsequent to the winding-up order, prompting a debate on the necessity of obtaining court leave before initiating legal proceedings against the liquidated company. Reference was made to a decision by Palaniswamy J. in Company Application No. 328 of 1970, highlighting the distinction between the Companies Act, 1913, and the Companies Act, 1956. The Supreme Court's ruling in Bansidhar Shankarlal v. Mohd. Ibrahim was cited, emphasizing that the failure to obtain leave before commencing proceedings did not automatically lead to dismissal. The court deliberated on the requirement of court leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, emphasizing that such leave is essential for initiating legal actions against a liquidated company. Granting leave in this case could potentially lead to a flood of litigation before the labor court, with each laborer filing petitions and involving the official liquidator in multiple cases. The court opined that the legislation intends for such claims to be adjudicated by the official liquidator, with the option for aggrieved parties to appeal to the court if needed. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, deeming the request for court leave to proceed with the petition before the labor court as misconceived. The applicant was advised to withdraw the proceedings before the labor court and file them before the official liquidator for appropriate relief, aligning with the legislative intent of centralizing such claims under the official liquidator's purview.
|
