Liquidator removal requires good cause; appellate interference is proper where discretionary liquidation orders rest on weak factual foundations.

A liquidator in winding-up proceedings subject to court supervision may be removed only for good cause shown and by a judicially reasoned order. On the facts noted, prolonged liquidation, opposition from persons connected with management, and asset-protection litigation did not establish that the liquidator alone caused delay or lack of progress, so removal was unjustified. An appellate court may interfere with a discretionary removal order where relevant material is ignored, wrong assumptions are made, or the result causes injustice; here, intervention was treated as proper judicial correction. The liquidator's continuance was upheld, with an additional liquidator appointed to protect the liquidation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order removing the liquidator was justified on the facts and in law; (ii) Whether the appellate court could interfere with the exercise of discretion by the District Judge in the liquidation proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the order removing the liquidator was justified on the facts and in law.

Analysis: The power to remove a liquidator in winding-up proceedings subject to supervision of the court had to be exercised for good cause shown and in a judicial manner. The circumstances relied upon for removal were examined against the background of prolonged and difficult liquidation, persistent opposition from persons connected with the management, litigation undertaken to secure company assets, and the absence of any substantial proof that the liquidator alone was responsible for the delay or lack of progress. The grounds recorded by the District Judge were found to be insufficiently firm to justify removal.

Conclusion: The order removing the liquidator was not justified. The liquidator was not liable to be displaced on the grounds relied upon.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court could interfere with the exercise of discretion by the District Judge in the liquidation proceedings.

Analysis: An appellate court may interfere with discretionary orders where relevant materials are ignored, wrong assumptions are made, or the resulting order causes injustice. Here, the learned single judge found that the District Judge had proceeded on shaky grounds and had not adequately balanced the real, substantial, and honest interests of the liquidation against the allegations made against the liquidator. The interference was treated as a proper judicial correction rather than a substitution of mere preference.

Conclusion: Interference with the District Judge's order was permissible and proper on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The liquidator's continuance was upheld, an additional liquidator was appointed to protect the liquidation, and the challenge to that arrangement failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A liquidator in winding-up proceedings subject to court supervision may be removed only for good cause shown, and an appellate court may set aside a discretionary removal order where the factual foundation is weak or the order works injustice to the real interests of the liquidation.

---