Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2019 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1535 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTWinding of company - Appointment of Official Liquidator - notice not given to the company and give a reasonable opportunity to it to make its representations - appellant is not afforded any opportunity of hearing, nor the reasons are recorded - HELD THAT:- In the case at hand as evident from the impugned order that no application seems to have been filed by the petitioner for appointment of Liquidator. It is merely on information that the Liquidator has not been appointed, learned Company Judge has directed for appointment of Liquidator. Sub-section (2) of Section 450 of Act, 1956 no doubt does empower the Company Judge to appoint a provisional liquidator even without issuing notice to the Company Concerned, however, for that incumbent it is for the Company Judge to have recorded reasons which are conspicuously absent in the case at hand. Further contention on behalf of respondent that the procedure prescribed under section 450 of 1956 Act and the Rules applies at initial stage of proceedings is taken note of and rejected at the outset. Fair reading of section 450 of 1956 Act does not contemplate that pendency of the petition under sections 433 and 434 of 1956 Act, the procedure is to be given a go bye - when the impugned order dated 8.7.2019 is tested on the anvil of the stipulations contained under section 450 of the Act, 1956 the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly set aside. Appeal allowed.
|