Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2002 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (12) TMI 496 - SC - Companies LawWhether when the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 exercises its power under section 19(18)(e) and appoints a Commissioner for preparation of an inventory of the properties of the defendants? Whether prior leave of the company judge under the provisions of the Companies Act is necessary, since the company in question is under liquidation and a provisional liquidator has been appointed? Held that:- As in the case on hand, in view of the limited direction that has been issued by the Tribunal, we see no question of any confrontation or usurping of the jurisdiction of the learned company judge or divesting the custody of the official liquidator, which custody, he has assumed by virtue of section 456 of the Companies Act. The limited direction of the Tribunal was to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and requiring the Commissioner to have an inventory of the properties, which direction undoubtedly the Tribunal possesses under section 19(18)(e) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act. For such direction issued by the Tribunal in exercise of power under section 19(18)(e) of the Act, no prior permission of the company judge under section 446 is necessary. In fact, the official liquidator should have co-operated with the Commissioner in making an inventory of the properties of which he continues to be in custody after being appointed as a provisional liquidator. Therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct that the provisional liquidator shall permit the Advocate Commissioner to have an inventory of the properties of the company.
|