Official Liquidator's power to prosecute held valid without further court direction where unrestricted authority was granted.

An Official Liquidator with an unrestricted power under section 179 of the Indian Companies Act could institute a criminal prosecution in the company's name without a further direction under section 237. The court held that section 179 was wide enough to cover prosecutions the company itself could have brought before winding up, and that the absence of a prior section 237 direction did not render the complaint illegal or invalid. The court could still restrict the liquidator's powers in an appropriate case, but where unrestricted authority had been granted, the liquidator could proceed directly. The prosecution was therefore valid and maintainable, and the objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an Official Liquidator, armed with an unrestricted power under section 179 of the Indian Companies Act, could institute a criminal prosecution in the name and on behalf of the company without any further direction under section 237 of the Indian Companies Act.

Analysis: The power conferred on the Official Liquidator under section 179 was held to be wide and capable of covering all prosecutions which the company itself could have instituted before winding up. The absence of a prior direction under section 237 did not make the complaint illegal or invalid. The court retained discretion to restrict the liquidator's powers in a particular case, but where an unrestricted authority had been granted, the liquidator could proceed without further reference to the court. If any person considered the action improper, the appropriate course was to move the court having control over the liquidator. There was nothing in sections 179 or 237 to show that such action was prohibited.

Conclusion: The prosecution by the Official Liquidator was valid and maintainable without a further court direction under section 237, and the objection to the complaint failed.

---