TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses compulsory winding up petition based on quasi-partnership principles; highlights importance of company articles.</h1> <h3>K/9 Meat Supplies (Guildford) Ltd. In re</h3> K/9 Meat Supplies (Guildford) Ltd. In re - [1966] 36 COMP. CAS. 758 (CD) Issues:Compulsory winding up of the company based on quasi-partnership, consideration of bankruptcy as a ground for winding up, distribution of profits among directors, application of Partnership Act, 1890, and the trustee in bankruptcy's lack of confidence in other directors.Analysis:The judgment involves a petition for the compulsory winding up of a company based on quasi-partnership principles. The petitioner, acting as the trustee in bankruptcy, sought winding up due to alleged unfair distribution of profits among directors. The court considered the company as a quasi-partnership, emphasizing the importance of the company's articles in determining the rights of the parties. The court referred to past cases like Yenidje Tobacco Co. Ltd. and highlighted the need to analyze the contractual rights of the parties as per the articles of association.The court examined the impact of bankruptcy on the company's status, noting that bankruptcy did not automatically lead to winding up but rather vested the bankrupt member's interest in the trustee in bankruptcy. The judgment emphasized that the event of bankruptcy was covered by the company's transmission articles, regulating the rights of the trustee. The court rejected the argument that bankruptcy alone justified winding up the company, highlighting the specific provisions governing bankruptcy in the company's articles.Regarding the distribution of profits, the court analyzed the informal arrangements among the directors and the trustee in bankruptcy's lack of confidence in other directors. The court referred to the Partnership Act, 1890, in assessing whether the actions of the directors constituted a breach of partnership agreement. However, the court found no unfairness in the profit distribution arrangement and noted that the trustee in bankruptcy's quasi-partnership relation ceased upon the bankrupt's resignation as a director.Despite expressing regret over the directors' actions, the court concluded that there was no legal basis for making a winding-up order. The judgment highlighted the importance of respecting the trustee in bankruptcy's rights as a minority shareholder and suggested potential recourse through a petition based on oppression if those rights were not honored. The court dismissed the petition and ordered costs against the bankrupt petitioner, emphasizing the trustee in bankruptcy's rights as a minority shareholder and potential avenues for further legal action if necessary.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
