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: Whether the official liquidator could implead the court receiver as a respondent and continue proceedings concerning property in the receiver's custody without prior leave of the court that appointed the receiver.
Analysis: On a winding up order, the company's property vests in the custody and control of the official liquidator and is deemed to be in the custody of the court. A receiver appointed over such property is an officer of the appointing court, and legal proceedings affecting property in that custody ordinarily require leave of that court. The absence of prior leave does not make impleadment of the receiver impermissible, because leave may be sought subsequently and may relate back, provided no prejudice is caused. The court therefore distinguished between impleading the receiver, which could be permitted, and continuation of coercive proceedings against property in the receiver's custody, for which leave of the appointing court was necessary.
Conclusion: The application was allowed to the extent that the court receiver was directed to be impleaded as a respondent, and the official liquidator was directed to obtain leave of the Bombay High Court to continue the proceedings against the receiver.
TaxTMI 
