Provisional liquidation not justified absent clear fraud, creditor standing or irreparable harm; appointment refused pending winding-up determination.

Provisional liquidation is an exceptional remedy and ordinarily requires creditor initiation or company consent; it should be ordered only where clear fraud, irreparable harm, or inability to pay debts is established on evidence sufficient to justify the serious consequences. Affidavit allegations of misuse or inefficient management were insufficient to prove fraud; threatened creditor enforcement had not progressed to show insolvency; managerial deadlock appeared likely resolvable by litigation or shareholder action. Abandonment of an expansion project may support a winding-up petition but did not justify provisional liquidation; the application for a provisional liquidator was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a provisional liquidator should be appointed for the company pending the making of a winding up order.

Analysis: The petitioners sought appointment of a provisional liquidator on grounds that the company had suffered heavy losses, that the substratum of its business (an expansion project) had been abandoned or indefinitely postponed, and that a deadlock had arisen in the management with competing boards issuing conflicting mandates. The court examined the limited and exceptional circumstances in which provisional liquidation is appropriate, noting that such appointments are ordinarily made on a creditor's petition or with the company's consent and that appointment carries serious consequences if no winding up is ultimately justified. The court considered evidence of alleged misuse of company funds and of inefficient management but found that fraud could not be established on the basis of affidavits alone. The court also observed that threatened creditor enforcement had not progressed to a stage showing the company to be unable to pay its debts, and that the asserted managerial deadlock was likely to be resolved by pending litigation or by shareholders convening to appoint directors. The court further held that abandonment or postponement of the expansion project might support a winding up application but did not justify provisional liquidation pending determination on winding up.

Conclusion: The application for appointment of a provisional liquidator is dismissed; the court refuses to appoint a provisional liquidator and the decision is against the petitioners.

---