Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a provisional liquidator should be appointed pending disposal of the winding-up petition.
Analysis: Appointment of a provisional liquidator is a drastic measure and is not to be made as a matter of course before hearing of the winding-up petition. Such relief is justified only in special circumstances, where it is shown to be absolutely necessary, and ordinarily not where there are contested allegations and counter-allegations between the parties or where the company is attempting revival. The court also noted that even serious allegations about mismanagement or loss of substratum do not by themselves justify appointment of a provisional liquidator at the interlocutory stage.
Conclusion: The prayer for appointment of a provisional liquidator was rejected.
Final Conclusion: Interim protection by way of provisional liquidation was declined, while the company and its management were directed to furnish accounts, disclose assets and liabilities, and refrain from alienating company assets pending further orders.
Ratio Decidendi: A provisional liquidator should not be appointed unless the court is satisfied that such drastic relief is absolutely necessary in special circumstances; mere allegations of mismanagement or loss of substratum are insufficient when the matter is seriously contested.