https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774944 The Bombay HC disposed of an application seeking permission to appoint a Peon (MTS) in liquidation proceedings. The court found that the Official Liquidator had improperly created a "Common Pool Fund" using unpaid amounts from liquidation proceedings, contrary to Section 555 of the Companies Act 1956, which requires such funds to be deposited in the Company Liquidation Account. The court noted that special/additional staff were being paid from this fund but were serving the Official Liquidator's Office rather than specific liquidation proceedings. The court directed that from August 2025, if company paid staff services continue, their expenses shall be borne by the Official Liquidator's Office, Nagpur. The court ordered the Common Pool Fund amount to be deposited in the Company Liquidation Account within 14 working days and recommended the Ministry of Corporate Affairs review the matter. en-us Fri, 11 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:19:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774944 The Bombay HC disposed of an application seeking permission to appoint a Peon (MTS) in liquidation proceedings. The court found that the Official Liquidator had improperly created a "Common Pool Fund" using unpaid amounts from liquidation proceedings, contrary to Section 555 of the Companies Act 1956, which requires such funds to be deposited in the Company Liquidation Account. The court noted that special/additional staff were being paid from this fund but were serving the Official Liquidator's Office rather than specific liquidation proceedings. The court directed that from August 2025, if company paid staff services continue, their expenses shall be borne by the Official Liquidator's Office, Nagpur. The court ordered the Common Pool Fund amount to be deposited in the Company Liquidation Account within 14 working days and recommended the Ministry of Corporate Affairs review the matter. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 11 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774944