Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 Official Liquidator was bound by the company's admission of debt in the winding up proceedings so as to dispense with proof of debt, and whether the applicant was entitled to have its claim adjudicated without furnishing proof under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
Analysis: The admission relied upon by the applicant was an admission made by the company in liquidation and had been used only to support the winding up order. The Official Liquidator, however, was not the maker of that admission and could not be treated as bound by it for the purpose of adjudicating proof of debt. The relevant law on admissions under the Evidence Act applies to admissions made by the persons contemplated by that statute, and the Liquidator, acting after the winding up order, does not fall within that position. Rule 149 requires every creditor to prove the debt unless a special case justifies admission without proof. The Court held that the applicant must first furnish proof of the money transfer and thereafter the Official Liquidator may consider whether the case warrants dispensing with further proof.
Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to compel the Official Liquidator to accept the claim merely on the basis of the company's prior admission, and proof of debt had to be furnished first.