https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96841 An appeal against a compulsory winding up order was held competent even though the company and official liquidator were not impleaded by name, because the company was substantially represented by its director-shareholders and no rule made the liquidator a necessary party. On the merits, the compulsory winding up was set aside because the supporting creditors were satisfied with payments under the voluntary liquidation, the remaining creditor had been paid in full, and only one dissenting director remained in opposition. The Court found no sufficient ground to displace the ongoing voluntary liquidation, which was allowed to continue. en-us Thu, 21 Nov 1940 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:59:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96841 An appeal against a compulsory winding up order was held competent even though the company and official liquidator were not impleaded by name, because the company was substantially represented by its director-shareholders and no rule made the liquidator a necessary party. On the merits, the compulsory winding up was set aside because the supporting creditors were satisfied with payments under the voluntary liquidation, the remaining creditor had been paid in full, and only one dissenting director remained in opposition. The Court found no sufficient ground to displace the ongoing voluntary liquidation, which was allowed to continue. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 21 Nov 1940 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96841