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%
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 the respondent, in the face of a pending suit and the company's winding up, was bound to pay the admitted debt due to the company in liquidation and whether such claim had to be routed through the official liquidator.
Analysis: The application was moved by the official liquidator for recovery of a trade debt shown in the statement of affairs. The respondent did not file any reply despite repeated and did not place material to substantiate its assertion of a cross-claim. The Court held that after a winding up order, a pending suit against the company cannot proceed except with leave of the Court under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. It further held that any claim against the company in liquidation must be lodged before the official liquidator, scrutinised and adjudicated in accordance with law before it can be treated as recoverable.
Conclusion: The respondent could not refuse payment of the company's debt on the basis of an unproven pending suit, and the application for recovery was maintainable and deserved to be allowed.
Final Conclusion: The official liquidator was entitled to recover the debt with interest and costs from the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: After a winding up order, a pending suit against the company cannot be proceeded with without leave of the Court, and claims concerning the company in liquidation must be presented to and adjudicated by the official liquidator before recovery.