Liquidator authority in winding up: no written authority needed, creditors' appointment stands, and suit filing needs no prior sanction.

A liquidator in a winding up represents the company itself, so Rule 23 of the Civil Rules of Practice does not require the liquidator to file a power of attorney or written authority when appearing personally. In a creditors' voluntary winding up, liquidators nominated by the creditors' meeting are validly appointed, and where creditors and the general body nominate different persons, the creditors' choice prevails. Prior sanction is not needed for instituting a suit, because the sanction requirement applies only to the specified powers corresponding to section 457(2)(i) to (iv), not to the power to sue under section 457(1). The note concludes that objections to maintainability failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the liquidators were required to file a power of attorney or written authority under the Civil Rules of Practice, (ii) whether the liquidators were validly appointed in the creditors' voluntary winding up, and (iii) whether sanction was required for filing the suit.

Issue (i): whether the liquidators were required to file a power of attorney or written authority under the Civil Rules of Practice.

Analysis: Rule 23 applies when a party appears through an agent other than a pleader. A liquidator in a winding up represents the company itself and is not a mere agent of the company. The rule would apply only if the liquidator himself were not appearing and had authorised some other person to act.

Conclusion: The objection failed and no power of attorney or written authority was required from the liquidators.

Issue (ii): whether the liquidators were validly appointed in the creditors' voluntary winding up.

Analysis: The liquidators were shown to have been nominated at the creditors' meeting. Under the statutory scheme, both the creditors and the general body may nominate liquidators, and if different persons are nominated, the persons chosen by the creditors prevail. The objection was also not raised in the courts below, and the materials disclosed no reason to doubt the appointment.

Conclusion: The appointment of the liquidators was upheld and the objection failed.

Issue (iii): whether sanction was required for filing the suit.

Analysis: In a creditors' voluntary winding up, sanction is needed only for exercising the powers corresponding to clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (2) of section 457. The institution of suits is governed by sub-section (1) of section 457, for which no sanction is prescribed. Therefore, filing the suit did not require prior sanction.

Conclusion: No sanction was required for instituting the suit, so this objection also failed.

Final Conclusion: All objections to the maintainability of the suit were rejected, and the second appeal could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a creditors' voluntary winding up, sanction is not required for instituting a suit because the sanction requirement under section 512(1)(a) is confined to the powers specified in section 457(2)(i) to (iv), not to the power to sue under section 457(1).

---