Winding up and continuation of appeal: failure of the Official Liquidator to come on record led to abatement.

Where an appellant-company had been ordered to be wound up, continuation of the pending appeal required compliance with Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The Tribunal noted that proceedings against a company in winding up require the appropriate leave of the court, and the Official Liquidator had to come on record and seek continuation within the prescribed time. As no such application was filed, the procedural requirement for maintaining the appeal was not satisfied, and the appeal abated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be proceeded with after the appellant-company had been ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator had not come on record within the prescribed time.

Analysis: On intimation that the company had been wound up, the Tribunal examined Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. Section 446(1) recognizes that proceedings against a company in winding up require the appropriate leave of the court, while Rule 22 places an obligation on the Official Liquidator to come on record and seek continuation of the proceedings within the prescribed period. As no such application was filed, the procedural requirement for continuation of the appeal was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to have abated and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: Due to the winding up of the appellant-company and non-compliance with the procedure for continuation of the appeal, the proceedings could not be maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company in winding up does not secure continuation of pending appellate proceedings through the Official Liquidator within the prescribed procedural framework, the appeal abates.

---