9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (7) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the important facts of the case. Messrs. Saroup Bansilal Engineers (India) P. Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter to be called "the company") was incorporated as a private limited company on 8th November, 1948, having its registered office at Delhi. The authorised capital of the company was Rs. 1,00,000. The paid up capital of the company at the date of commencement of the winding-up proceedings was Rs. 60,400.00. The creditors of the company, vide their meeting held on 29th of July, 1961, passed a special resolution resolving to wind up the company voluntarily. The appellant was unanimously appointed as a liquidator by the creditors. The notice of appointment by the voluntary liquidator dated the 7th August, 1969, was filed with the Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssets were shown at Rs. 5,065.9. The estimated value of the assets still to be realised was revealed at Rs. 18,550.59. The appellant in the statement of accounts as on 31st of January, 1966, filed with the Registrar showed the same figures as above regarding the assets realised and the estimated value of the assets to be realised. However, the appellant appended a note beneath the estimated value of the assets to be realised that it was a book entry and there was no hope of realization of any amount from those figures and they should be taken as a dead item. In the statement of account as on July 31, 1966, the note appended under the estimated value of the assets still to be realised was that it was a book entry and there was no hope of rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 in contravention of the provisions of law. The learned single judge after considering the respective contentions 61 the parties came to the conclusion that the liquidator had in unequivocal, terms expressed his views that nothing could be realised from the realizable, assets of the company estimated at Rs. 18,550.59 and that claims had to be settled with the Custodian of Evacuee Property as also with the Finance Corporation which could be done more effectively by the official liquidator, allowed the petition and removed the appellant as liquidator of the company and appointed the official liquidator as the liquidator of the company. The order of the learned single judge has been assailed on the ground that it offends against the rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of us (Hardayal Hardy J.) in an earlier case of the appellant in E.A.O. No. 47-D of 1966 (Hardit Singh Giani v. Registrar of Companies) decided on November 6, 1967, and the learned judge, after considering English and Indian authorities on the point, observed that in such a case the court has to take an overall view of the matter and has to balance the consideration of fair play to the liquidator himself and consider whether the continuance of the liquidator would be beneficial to the real, substantial and honest interest of liquidation which is the purpose for which the liquidator was appointed. Applying the principle, namely, that the continuance of the liquidator can be sustained only if his staying in the office of the liquidator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the statement of the company as on 31st of January, 1966, 31stof July, 1966, and 31st of January, 1967. On the other hand, the positive assertion of the respondent, Registrar of Companies, supported by his affidavit is that the writing off of Rs. 18,555.59 as dead assets of the company is unjustified and that the said assets can be recovered if a concerted effort is made. There is no dispute that out of the assets realized by the appellant in the sum of Rs. 5,065.9 the entire amount was spent in meeting the expenses, etc., and not a single penny has been paid to the creditors of the company. The appellant having not only expressed the opinion that the assets of the company still to be realized were dead assets and the same be treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quidator is not appointed with the purpose of holding a lucrative appointment for himself and he cannot be allowed to remain in office to perpetuate his existence at the cost and to the ruin of the creditors. The scheme for appointing the liquidator is to see that the proceedings for winding-up shall go on to the advantage of the company. The question, therefore, is whether the removal of the appellant as liquidator would help the proceedings for winding up to the advantage of the company, taking into consideration the overall state of affairs of the company and the manner in which the appellant as liquidator had conducted the affairs of the company. We are satisfied, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the learned singl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
