9911796707
TMI Blog1934 (11) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .H. Wadia as provisional liquidator of the company. Then the matter came on twice before Mr. Justice Kania. First, on the 12th March he sanctioned a proposed scheme with some modification. It was a second time placed before him on the 16th April, 1934, and he then sanctioned the scheme without any modification and dismissed the petition for winding up. Mr. Justice Kania's latter order was reversed by the Court of Appeal on the 25th September, 1934. The Court of Appeal ordered the company to be wound-up and appointed Mr. H.H. Wadia, Official Liquidator. On the next day, i.e., 26th September, 1934, the Official Liquidator obtained an ex parte order from me sanctioning the appointment of Messrs. Ardeshir Hormusji Dinshaw and Co. as Solicit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nity of having more materials on which the question could be considered, provided that the materials could properly be placed before me. The English practice, Halsbury Vol. V., p. 736, paragraph 1233, gives 14 days for an application to discharge orders made in company matters. This was relied upon in view ' of Rule 750 of the High Court Rules which requires the English practice and procedure to be followed in matters relating to companies in so far as they are applicable and not inconsistent with our rules or the Act. Speaking with reference to the case before me, it is clear that the interests of the creditors of the company are involved in the selection by the liquidator of a firm of Solicitors which was not previously concerned in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affidavit of Narayanrao Babacharya Kale dated the 13th October 1934; but from the impressions that the arguments of the case made on my mind and the difficulty that the Official Liquidator's Counsel had in dealing with the complicated facts which have already taken place. In several instances in spite of the very great care that Mr. Engineer took he was misinformed as the actual facts that took place and several statements he made to me as statements of fact had to be corrected by the Counsel who appeared for the petitioning creditors. The petitioning creditors are entitled to see that the liquidation proceedings are carried on not only efficiently, but (consistently with efficiency) as economically as possible. The appointment of a firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... underlying it in mind, the question might be considered to be, not whether Messrs. Ardeshir, Hormusji, Dinshaw and Co. would be proper Solicitors for the Official Liquidator irrespective of all the circumstances of the case, nor whether the petitioning creditors' Solicitors should in an abstract manner be preferred to Messrs. Ardeshir, Hormusji, Dinshaw and Co., but whether the petitioning creditors' Solicitors should, for any reason, be deferred to another firm of Solicitors. The question need not be, perhaps it is not capable of being, formulated, in very precise terms. It must depend on the facts of each case. In the present case I consider the petitioning creditors' Solicitors ought not merely not to be deferred to others but should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
