9911796707
TMI Blog1947 (9) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel. 2. The company was registered in January, 1929, and has an authorised capital of ₹ 23 lakhs divided into 20,000 ordinary and 3,000 preference shares, each of the face value of ₹ 100. The issued capital is 11,290 ordinary shares and 1,162 preference shares all of which except to a small extent of ₹ 120 are fully paid. Thus the paid-up capital of the Company amounts to ₹ 12,45,200. The petitioner is a creditor of the company for a capital sum of ₹ 1,06,465 odd plus interest. On the 15th July, he served a statutory notice demanding payment but apart from a payment on account of ₹ 25,000 the Company has failed to meet that demand. Prima facie therefore this is a case in which a compulsory winding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May this year and that since that date no business has been done. Counsel for the trustees of the first debenture-holders has explained that his clients took over the control of the business on the 14th February, 1947, for non-payment of interest. It was then arranged between the Board of the Company and the trustees that the trustees would work the mills for three months and would defer bringing their security to sale for that period. Counsel described this as a last effort to see whether the company could be run profitably. The money required (about 2 lakhs of rupees) to work the company for the three months was put up by the petitioner who was then or had previously been in the service of the trustees. That three months' working res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of these circumstances and on account of the fact that the partners of the managing agents of the company and the trustees of the debenture-holders are all residing at Bombay, the petitioner fears for the safety of the company's assets. It is not suggested that these fears are unjustified. 8. I am satisfied that this is a case in which the appointment of a provisional liquidator will be proper. Counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the following observations of Lord Romilly, M.R., in In re The Railway Finance Co. 14 L. T. 507 that learned Judge observed: I do not appoint a provisional liquidator unless it appears that the company cannot go on. and in In re London Hamburg and Continental Exchange Bank (Emmerson&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Receiver, but I am asked to appoint Mr. R.G.N. Price, late of Messrs. Fraser and Ross, Chartered Accountants of this city. The company is a large undertaking with its Mills and registered office outside Madras and I am satisfied that it would be more suitable to appoint a chartered accountant rather than the Official Receiver. Accordingly; I appoint Mr. Price as provisional liquidator of the company to take charge of the assets of the company at Rajahmundry. He will of course act in close co-operation with the trustees of the debenture-holders who are already in possession of the building, machinery and plant. Counsel for the trustees states that his clients will give the provisional liquidator all possible assistance. He will furnish sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
