Winding up custody prevails over later asset attachment, with company property administered by the Official Liquidator.

Where a company had already been ordered to be wound up, its assets, monies, records and other property in the company's name vested in the custody of the Company Court and had to be administered by the Official Liquidator under the Companies Act, 1956. The MPID attachment regime could not override that statutory custody, and company assets were required to be transferred to the liquidator. Depositor and investor claims also could not take priority over the winding up distribution scheme; the Companies Act's hierarchy of debts, preferential payments and distribution continued to govern, while the MPID process could proceed only against personal properties of directors or agents not shown to belong to the companies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after a company is ordered to be wound up, the properties and monies standing in its name can continue to remain under the control of MPID authorities or must be handed over to the Official Liquidator for administration under the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) Whether claims of depositors and investors are to be adjudicated and satisfied under the MPID Act in priority over the statutory scheme of distribution under the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether, after a company is ordered to be wound up, the properties and monies standing in its name can continue to remain under the control of MPID authorities or must be handed over to the Official Liquidator for administration under the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Once winding up is ordered, the company's properties and effects vest in the custody and control of the Company Court and the Official Liquidator under the winding up provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The power under the MPID Act to attach property is intended to protect depositors, but it does not displace the statutory consequences of a prior winding up order. Subsequent attachment or vesting under the MPID framework, without leave of the Company Court, cannot override the liquidator's statutory custody over company assets already brought within the winding up process.

Conclusion: The properties and monies standing in the name of the wound up companies were required to be handed over to the Official Liquidator, and the MPID authorities could not retain control over those assets.

Issue (ii): Whether claims of depositors and investors are to be adjudicated and satisfied under the MPID Act in priority over the statutory scheme of distribution under the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The Companies Act, 1956 provides a complete hierarchy for winding up, including proof of debt, pari passu treatment of workmen and secured creditors, preferential payments, and subsequent distribution to other creditors and depositors. The MPID Act is a special depositor-protection statute, but it does not contain a mechanism for dealing with the full consequences of company winding up or for defeating the statutory priority of workmen, secured creditors, and preferential creditors. Harmonious construction requires that company assets in liquidation be administered by the Official Liquidator, while claims already received or to be received may be channelled for adjudication in the appropriate forum without reopening matters already adjudicated under the winding up regime.

Conclusion: Depositor and investor claims could not be given precedence over the winding up distribution scheme under the Companies Act, 1956, and the statutory priorities under that Act were to govern distribution of company assets.

Final Conclusion: The winding up jurisdiction of the Company Court prevailed in respect of assets of the companies in liquidation, while the MPID authorities could proceed only against the personal properties of directors and agents not shown to belong to the companies. Company assets, bank balances, records, and other property in the name of the companies were directed to be transferred to the Official Liquidator, and claims were to be processed in accordance with the winding up framework, subject to the limited directions issued regarding the four properties identified pursuant to the Supreme Court's order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company has already been ordered to be wound up, its assets vest in the custody of the Company Court and must be administered by the Official Liquidator under the Companies Act, 1956; a later attachment regime under the MPID Act cannot override that statutory scheme, though personal properties of directors or agents may remain liable under the MPID process.

---