9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (4) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance Society Ltd. on May 1, 1954, in the court of the District Judge, Jaipur City. A winding up order was made on December 19, 1956, and under this winding up order Shri K. L. Bohra who was then Deputy Registrar of the Jaipur Bench was appointed as official liquidator in the case. In this capacity Shri Bohra moved an application in the court of the District Judge for the prosecution of the directors which was allowed. Against the order of the District Judge the directors preferred an appeal to this court Shri Bohra was impleaded as a respondent in this appeal. In the meantime Shri Bohra ceased to be the Deputy Registrar of the High Court Bench at Jaipur and Shri M. J. Mardia was appointed in his place as Deputy Registrar. Shri Bohra was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s urged before the learned District Judge that the order passed by this court on October 30, 1957, in the appeal amounted to the removal of Shri K.L. Bohra and the appointment of Shri M.J. Mardia as official liquidator in the case. The learned District Judge thereupon made a reference to this court which came up before a learned single judge for hearing. As the order substituting the name of Shri Mardia in place of that of Shri Bohra was passed by another learned single judge of this court the present case has been referred to a Division Bench. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties it appears to us that Shri K.L. Bohra still continues to be the official liquidator in the present case and his appointment was not terminated by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liquidator in the present case. It is clear from the notification dated July 18, 1956, appointing Shri K.L. Bohra as official liquidator and the notification dated August 13, 1957, appointing Shri M.J. Mardia as official liquidator that these appointments have been made under section 448(1)( b ) of the new Act. Section 448 provides for such appointments for purposes of the new Act only. These appointments under the new Act do not affect the appointment made under the old Act in any way. Learned counsel for Shri Mardia also drew our attention to rules 572 and 607 of the High Court Rules framed under the old Companies Act and argued that Shri Bohra could have been removed and Shri Mardia could have been appointed in his place under these ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
