Provisional liquidator powers may be restricted to keep a company's plant running for beneficial winding up.

Pending a winding-up petition, the High Court may appoint a provisional liquidator with restricted powers and sanction continued operation of the company's business where that is necessary for beneficial winding up. The court accepted that running the plant could preserve the undertaking's value, prevent deterioration, generate funds toward liabilities, and better protect creditors and workmen than leaving the plant idle while compromise schemes were considered. It also held that the company's property could be safeguarded through court custody, supervision, insurance, inventory controls, compensation terms, and return conditions. The company was therefore permitted to continue as a working concern under judicial control pending the scheme petitions.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after presentation of a winding-up petition and pending consideration of rival schemes of compromise and arrangement, the Court could appoint a provisional liquidator with restricted powers and permit the company's plant to be run by a third party for the beneficial winding up of the company.

Analysis: The winding-up petition had been presented and the Court was seized of the matter before any final winding-up order. Section 450 permitted appointment of a provisional liquidator in that interregnum, and section 450(3) enabled the Court to limit or restrict his powers. Section 457(1) empowered the liquidator, with sanction of the Court, to carry on the company's business where that was necessary for beneficial winding up. The reasoning accepted that a working plant would preserve value, prevent deterioration, generate compensation to meet liabilities, and better protect creditors and workmen than leaving the undertaking idle pending processing of the scheme petitions. The order also safeguarded the company's property by keeping the plant in the custody of the Court through the provisional liquidator and by imposing detailed conditions on possession, supervision, insurance, inventory, compensation, and return of the plant.

Conclusion: The Court held that it had jurisdiction to make the arrangement, appointed the official liquidator as provisional liquidator with restricted powers, and allowed the plant to be handed over for operation on the terms fixed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The company was permitted to continue as a working concern under Court supervision pending the scheme petitions, with the plant being operated under controlled conditions to preserve value and serve the beneficial winding up of the company.

Ratio Decidendi: Pending a winding-up petition, the Court may appoint a provisional liquidator with restricted powers and authorise continued operation of the company's business when such operation is necessary for the beneficial winding up and for preserving the value of the undertaking as a going concern.

---