TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court had power, under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Banking Companies Act, to require the court liquidator to furnish security.
Analysis: Under the earlier law, the court had express authority to require security from a liquidator. The later statutory scheme, however, transferred the office of liquidator to a Central Government appointee and omitted any re-enacted power corresponding to the former provision authorising the court to insist on security. The appointment order and notification also did not impose such a condition. In these circumstances, the court held that no residual jurisdiction remained to add a further term requiring security or to act on non-furnishing of security by substituting another liquidator.
Conclusion: The application succeeded and the court liquidator was held not liable to furnish security; the High Court had no power or jurisdiction to require it.
Final Conclusion: The decision recognizes that, in the absence of express statutory authority under the later enactments, the court could not compel security from the court liquidator, though the issue was considered suitable for governmental reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the later statutory scheme omits the earlier express power to require security from a liquidator, the court cannot read such power back into the statute or impose security as a condition of appointment absent legislative authority.
TaxTMI 
