Voluntary liquidator's lack of personal standing and non-joinder of the company rendered the appeal incompetent.

A voluntary liquidator had no personal right of appeal in his own name against an order made against the company because the right of appeal is statutory and belongs to a party to the proceedings or an authorised person; the appeal was therefore incompetent on that ground. The challenge also failed for non-joinder of the company, which remained the necessary party in proceedings against it, and its absence from the record within limitation could not be cured by amendment after time had expired. The court declined to permit amendment and the petitions failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the voluntary liquidator could maintain an appeal in his own name against an order made against the company; and (ii) whether the appeal and petition were incompetent for non-joinder of the company as a necessary party.

Issue (i): whether the voluntary liquidator could maintain an appeal in his own name against an order made against the company.

Analysis: The right of appeal was treated as a statutory right exercisable only by a person who is a party to the proceedings or is otherwise authorised to appeal. The company, not the liquidator personally, was the real party interested in the controversy concerning the validity of the voluntary liquidation and the jurisdiction of the court. The liquidator was only an administrator or agent for winding up and did not become the transferee of the company's rights or liabilities so as to confer on him an individual right of appeal.

Conclusion: The voluntary liquidator could not maintain the appeal in his own name.

Issue (ii): whether the appeal and petition were incompetent for non-joinder of the company as a necessary party.

Analysis: The original proceedings were against the company, and the company remained the necessary party in any challenge to the order. Mere description of officers of the company did not substitute for impleading the company itself. Since the company was not brought on record within time, the proceeding was not properly constituted and the defect could not be cured by amendment after limitation had expired.

Conclusion: The appeal and petition were incompetent for want of the company as a necessary party.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on both the want of standing of the liquidator and the absence of the company as a necessary party, and the court declined to permit amendment to cure the defect.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proceedings are instituted against the company, a voluntary liquidator has no personal right to appeal in his own name, and the company must be impleaded as a necessary party; failure to do so within limitation renders the appeal incompetent.

---