Liquidator custody and lease disputes: owned movable assets must be returned, but unpaid rentals need proof and proper stamping.

An owner of movable assets in a company liquidator's custody is entitled to return of those assets where ownership is admitted and no charge is shown over them; the D.G. sets were therefore ordered to be released, subject to an undertaking and bank guarantee against any future stamp duty or penalty liability. A claim for outstanding lease rentals could not be granted because the applicant could not prove lease termination or unpaid rentals without relying on the lease deeds, so the monetary claim had to be lodged as an unsecured claim before the liquidator. The lease deeds also appeared insufficiently stamped and were directed to be impounded for action under the Stamp Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to immediate return of the four D.G. sets in the hands of the official liquidator. (ii) Whether the applicant was entitled to payment of outstanding lease rentals, and whether the lease deeds required impounding for insufficient stamp duty.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to immediate return of the four D.G. sets in the hands of the official liquidator.

Analysis: The applicant established ownership of the D.G. sets from the invoices and the admitted position that no charge existed over the assets. The official liquidator could not retain property that did not belong to the company in liquidation. Although the applicant could not prove termination of the lease independently of the lease deeds, the lack of any charge and the admitted ownership of the applicant justified return of the assets. The return was directed to be safeguarded by an undertaking to satisfy any future stamp duty and penalty liability, with a bank guarantee.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the applicant, and the four D.G. sets were directed to be returned subject to the stated undertaking and bank guarantee.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant was entitled to payment of outstanding lease rentals, and whether the lease deeds required impounding for insufficient stamp duty.

Analysis: The claim for outstanding lease rentals depended on the lease deeds and the applicant could not establish the termination of the lease or the unpaid rentals without reliance on those deeds. The applicant was therefore left to lodge a claim with the official liquidator as an unsecured creditor. On the stamp duty aspect, the lease deeds appeared prima facie to be insufficiently stamped, and the court directed impounding and appropriate action under the Stamp Act.

Conclusion: The claim for immediate payment of lease rentals was rejected, while the lease deeds were directed to be examined and impounded for stamp duty purposes.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded only to the extent of recovery of the D.G. sets, while the monetary claim for lease rentals was not granted and the stamping objection was left to be dealt with in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An owner of movable assets in the custody of a liquidator cannot be deprived of those assets merely because a contractual claim is disputed, but monetary claims dependent on unproved lease termination cannot be granted without the underlying instrument being proved and duly stamped.

---