Voluntary winding up challenge limits: creditors cannot attack validity or seek liquidator relief without statutory preconditions.

Creditors could not use section 216 to challenge the existence or validity of a voluntary winding up, because that provision is limited to questions arising in the winding up and to assistance that is just and beneficial to the process. Ancillary reliefs such as supervision, or appointment or removal of a liquidator, were unavailable unless the statutory preconditions under section 209 had first been met, including the required creditors' meeting and resolution. In the absence of those conditions, the applications were inconsistent with the statutory scheme and were treated as misconceived.

---

---

Issues: Whether creditors had locus standi to seek declarations that a voluntary winding up was illegal and void, or to obtain ancillary reliefs such as appointment or removal of a liquidator, in the absence of compliance with the statutory preconditions.

Analysis: The statutory power under section 216 was confined to determining questions arising in a voluntary winding up or granting assistance that was just and beneficial to the winding up. It did not authorize a creditor to challenge the existence or validity of the winding up itself. An application for supervision or for appointment or removal of a liquidator could not be sustained unless the procedural conditions required by section 209 had first been satisfied, including the requisite creditors' meeting and resolution. Since no such precondition was fulfilled, and the petition was inconsistent with the reliefs sought and the statutory scheme, the applications were misconceived.

Conclusion: The creditors had no maintainable basis to obtain the reliefs sought, and the applications failed.

---