9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (2) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ?., filed an application for winding up the Company known as Chopasni Ice, Aerated Water and Oil Mills Ltd., jodhpur. That application came up for hearing on 1st February, 1961, but it could not be disposed of on that date and the hearing was adjourned to 13th March 1961. On that date, an adjournment was again sought by one of the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the Company submitted before the Court that he had no objection to the adjournment being given, provided the Company was permitted to lease out the factory. Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Government Advocate, who appeared for the Rajasthan Electricity Board, Jaipur, (one of the creditors) also expressed no objection to the adjournment and the factory b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to continue the lease beyond 31-12-1962. The lease should be only for one season expiring on 31-12-1962. He also directed that the lease should be re-drafted accordingly and a copy be filed in Court for approval before it is executed. 5. On 17-2-1962 the present appellant filed an application before the learned Judge to the effect that he had already obtained the lease from the Company, that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court, that he had taken the lease on the specific condition that he would have a right of renewal for five years, that he had spent a substantial heavy amount in effecting necessary repairs and running the factory, that by the change approved by the Court he would be put to heavy loss and so, it was pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... winding up order was given by that time and hence the subsequent orders dated 12-2-1962 and 19-2-1962 revoking that order were correct and this-Court need not interfere with them. 8. Learned counsel for the Company contests the appeal on a different ground. According to him, the learned Judge had jurisdiction to-pass the order dated 9-5-1961 under Section 443(1)(c) of the Act, that he had inherent powers to modify that order and the appeal should, therefore, be dismissed. 9. It may be observed that after a winding up petition in respect of a Company is presented in the Court, it is not proper for the Company to enter into long term contracts or make disposition of its property in such a manner as to cause delay in winding up proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the original order dated 9-5-1961, because if this point is not considered then the effect would be that if the orders dated 12-2-1962 and 19-2-1962 are set aside that order would stand. Learned counsel for the Company has no doubt tried to support the correctness of that order by referring to Section 443(1)(c) of the Act but we find ourselves unable to agree with him. The relevant portion of Section 443 of the Act runs as follows - 443. Powers of Court on hearing petition --(1) on hearing a winding up petition, the Court may - (a) dismiss it, with or without costs; or (b) -adjourn the hearing conditionally or unconditionally; or (c)' make any interim, order that it thinks fit; or (d) make an order for winding up th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration to this argument and we think that it is not tenable. It may be pointed out that if a situation arises on account of which the Court feels an imperative necessity of passing some order with regard to the property of the Company, then the proper course is to resort to Section 450 of the Act and appoint a provisional liquidator. That section empowers the Court that it may, at any time, after the presentation of a winding up petition, and before the making of a winding up order, appoint the Official Liquidator to be liquidator provisionally. Thus, if a provisional liquidator is appointed after giving notice to the Company as required by Sub-section (2), he would deal with the property according to law. In our opinion, the Act does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs would not be void, if for certain reasons it thinks that they should not be considered to be void. It may be pointed out that the situation visualised by this section does not arise before winding up order is passed by the Court. It may be added that this provision lends support to the view which we have expressed above instead of giving any support to the argument of the learned counsel for the Company. In our opinion, the scheme of the Act is, that so long as a Company is not ordered to be wound up by the Court, it should not, in the ordinary course pass any order with regard to the property of the Company. If it comes to the conclusion that the appointment of a provisional liquidator is necessary, then it may do so but this step would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
