https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97514 The later Companies Act and Banking Companies Act scheme did not re-enact the earlier express power to require security from a liquidator, so the court could not imply that authority or add security as a condition of appointment. Because the liquidator was appointed under a statutory framework that omitted any corresponding term in the order or notification, no residual jurisdiction remained to compel security or to treat non-furnishing as a basis for substituting another liquidator. The principle applied is that a court cannot read back into the statute a power that the legislature has omitted. en-us Tue, 02 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:49:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97514 The later Companies Act and Banking Companies Act scheme did not re-enact the earlier express power to require security from a liquidator, so the court could not imply that authority or add security as a condition of appointment. Because the liquidator was appointed under a statutory framework that omitted any corresponding term in the order or notification, no residual jurisdiction remained to compel security or to treat non-furnishing as a basis for substituting another liquidator. The principle applied is that a court cannot read back into the statute a power that the legislature has omitted. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 02 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97514