TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a revision application can be maintained only to challenge observations made in an order that ultimately goes against the applicant; (ii) whether, on the facts pleaded, amendment of the plaint to seek a declaration of dissolution and consequential liquidation relief was tenable; and (iii) whether the appointment of a liquidator and the directions permitting the legal representatives to continue the business as agents were justified.
Issue (i): whether a revision application can be maintained only to challenge observations made in an order that ultimately goes against the applicant
Analysis: The final order on the amendment application had gone against the applicants, and the challenge was directed only to certain observations recorded in the course of rejecting that application. In revisional jurisdiction, a party cannot seek interference merely with incidental observations when the operative result is in its favour on that application. The challenge did not disclose any ground for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Conclusion: The revision challenging the observations alone was not maintainable and was rejected against the applicants.
Issue (ii): whether, on the facts pleaded, amendment of the plaint to seek a declaration of dissolution and consequential liquidation relief was tenable
Analysis: The pleadings asserted that the society or company stood dissolved on the death of one of the members, leaving only one surviving member, and the proposed amendment sought consequential reliefs flowing from that asserted dissolution. The trial court had already rejected the amendment application as untenable in law, and no revisional error was shown in that view. The proposed amendment was therefore not a ground for interference.
Conclusion: The refusal to allow the amendment was upheld.
Issue (iii): whether the appointment of a liquidator and the directions permitting the legal representatives to continue the business as agents were justified
Analysis: The assets were lying with the legal representatives after the death of a member, and the surviving member was entitled to have the assets and liabilities ascertained and worked out through liquidation. Appointment of a liquidator was held to be proper in law, justice, and equity. At the same time, practical considerations justified permitting the legal representatives to continue the business as agents of the liquidator on terms to be settled and certified by the trial court. The order was therefore sustained with the added direction regarding agency and certification of terms.
Conclusion: The appointment of the liquidator was confirmed and the ancillary direction regarding agency was approved.
Final Conclusion: The revision proceedings did not warrant interference with the trial court's orders, and the liquidation process was allowed to proceed subject to the directions issued regarding continuation of business by the legal representatives as agents.
Ratio Decidendi: A revision cannot be maintained merely to attack adverse observations when the operative order is otherwise final, and where liquidation is necessary to protect the rights of the surviving member and ascertain the assets and liabilities, appointment of a liquidator is proper, with workable ancillary directions being permissible.
TaxTMI 
