Provisional liquidator appointment turns on asset protection, notice requirements, and court-directed winding-up advertisement compliance.

A provisional liquidator may be appointed where notice to the company is given or validly dispensed with for special reasons, and the court is satisfied that asset protection is needed pending winding up. On the facts discussed, the company's admitted liability, lack of demonstrated financial improvement, and unexplained risk of asset dissipation justified appointment of the Official Liquidator as provisional liquidator. The objection based on Rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was rejected because the petition had already been advertised under court directions and the rule operates subject to those directions. The commentary emphasises that the power is discretionary and aimed at preserving company assets.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a provisional liquidator should be appointed under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 106 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 in the facts of the case; (ii) Whether the challenge based on alleged non-compliance with Rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether a provisional liquidator should be appointed under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 106 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Section 450 requires notice to the company and a reasonable opportunity to represent its case before appointing a provisional liquidator, unless special reasons justify dispensing with notice. The power is discretionary and is to be exercised judicially to protect and preserve the company's assets pending winding up. The Court found that the respondent had admitted liability in its balance sheet, had not shown any material improvement in its financial condition over the years, and had given no convincing explanation to negate the apprehension that assets might be alienated or dissipated. The earlier conduct of unauthorized withdrawals during the pendency of proceedings also reinforced the need for protection of assets.

Conclusion: The appointment of the Official Liquidator as provisional liquidator was justified and was directed in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge based on alleged non-compliance with Rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was sustainable.

Analysis: The winding-up petition had already been advertised pursuant to court directions, and the Rule itself operates subject to directions of the Court. The advertisements were in fact effected and the objection that the petitioning creditor alone had to sign the advertisement form did not establish any legal irregularity. The Court therefore treated the objection as lacking merit.

Conclusion: The objection under Rule 99 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed, the Official Liquidator was appointed as provisional liquidator, and restraints were imposed to preserve the respondent-company's assets pending further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A provisional liquidator may be appointed only where notice requirements under Section 450 are satisfied or validly dispensed with, and where the circumstances show a real need to protect the company's assets from dissipation pending winding up.

---