1977 (12) TMI 91 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the application by the official liquidator.
2. Requirement of court fees on the petition.

Summary:

Issue 1: Competency of the Application by the Official Liquidator

The appellant contended that the official liquidator should have filed a suit instead of a petition u/s 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act for the recovery of amounts. The court examined the provisions of section 446(2) before and after the 1960 amendment, noting that the amendment aimed to confer comprehensive jurisdiction upon the company court to decide all claims by or against the company to expedite winding-up proceedings. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 45B of the Banking Companies Act, which had similar provisions, concluding that the amendment intended to avoid delays and expenses associated with suits. Therefore, the court held that the petitions under section 446(2)(b) were maintainable, providing an option to file either a suit or a claim petition.

Issue 2: Requirement of Court Fees on the Petition

The appellant argued that the court fees on the petition should have been paid as upon a suit in accordance with Schedule I of the Court-fees Act. The court held that the application filed by the official liquidator should be stamped as an application u/s 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, as provided in article 1(d) of Schedule II to the Court-fees Act, which prescribes a fee of Rs. 13. The court disagreed with the decision in In re Official Liquidator v. T. Muniswamy Achary, which required ad valorem court fees, and upheld the fixed court fee of Rs. 13 as proper.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the petitions u/s 446(2)(b) were maintainable and the fixed court fee of Rs. 13 was correct. The court emphasized that the provisions of rules 6, 34, and 36 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, do not narrow the plain meaning of section 446(2). The appeals were dismissed with costs.