TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Indian Companies Act: Section 235 Applies to All Winding Up Modes</h1> <h3>Vemuri Parandhamiah Versus R. Narasimha Rao</h3> The court held that Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act applies to all modes of winding up, including voluntary winding up. The appeal was dismissed ... Winding up - Power to apply to court to have questions determined or powers exercised and Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act to voluntary winding up.2. Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal.3. Interpretation of Section 216 of the Indian Companies Act.4. Jurisdiction of the court to initiate misfeasance proceedings in voluntary liquidation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act to voluntary winding up:The primary contention raised by the appellant was that Section 235 of the Companies Act does not apply to a company that was wound up voluntarily. The court examined the language and structure of the Act, particularly focusing on Part V, which relates to 'winding up' and includes three modes: by the court, voluntary, and subject to the supervision of the court. The court noted that Section 235 is part of the 'supplemental provisions' and uses the term 'liquidator' in a comprehensive sense, inclusive of both official liquidators and those appointed in voluntary winding up. The court concluded that the language of Section 235 is general and applies to all three modes of winding up as indicated in Section 155 of the Act. This interpretation was supported by authoritative texts such as Palmer's Company Law and Lindley, as well as the decision in Rance's case.2. Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal:The respondent raised a preliminary objection concerning the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that under Section 202 of the Companies Act, an order made in the winding up of a company is only appealable if it qualifies as a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The court, however, decided not to express an opinion on this preliminary objection, as it determined that the appeal should fail on its merits.3. Interpretation of Section 216 of the Indian Companies Act:The appellant argued that Section 216, which allows a liquidator, contributory, or creditor to apply to the court to determine any question arising in the winding up of a company, does not extend to initiating misfeasance proceedings under Section 235 in the case of voluntary winding up. The court rejected this argument, stating that Section 216's general words 'any other matter' should not be limited by the doctrine of ejusdem generis, as the enumerated topics (enforcing calls, staying proceedings) are dissimilar. Thus, the court held that Section 216 does not restrict the applicability of Section 235 to voluntary winding up.4. Jurisdiction of the court to initiate misfeasance proceedings in voluntary liquidation:The court affirmed its jurisdiction to entertain the present application for misfeasance proceedings against the ex-managing director and the liquidator, even in the case of voluntary liquidation. The court emphasized that Section 235 provides a remedy for the recovery of assets improperly dealt with by directors or officers and applies to all modes of winding up, including voluntary liquidation. The court's interpretation was further supported by English legal texts and the decision in In re Home and Colonial Insurance Co.Conclusion:The court concluded that Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act applies to all modes of winding up, including voluntary winding up. The preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal was not addressed, as the appeal was dismissed on its merits. The court held that Section 216 does not limit the applicability of Section 235 and affirmed its jurisdiction to initiate misfeasance proceedings in voluntary liquidation. The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the first respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
