1950 (6) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "In the matter of the petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India, under Articles 132, 133 and 135, Constitution of India, read with section 205, Government of India Act, against the judgment . . . . And In the matter of Ratan Lal Chowla, Advocate, (Voluntary Liquidator) of 59, Lawrence Road, Amritsar,-Appellant to the Supreme Court of India, v. John Vasica and Another." Three preliminary objections to the competency of the petition were taken by the counsel for the respondents which are-(1) the matters in controversy have been compromised between the respondents and the company; (2) the petitioner has no right to appeal on his own behalf; and (3) the company was a necessary party and that not having been impleaded ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and not with Mr. Chowla. At any rate, Mr. Chowla was only a liquidator and he could not in law file an appeal in his own name. That the appeal is filed in his own name is clear from the heading of the petition as also statements in para. 2 of the petition under Order 12, Rules 3, 6 and 7 and Order 20, Rule 1, of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950. Mr. Chowla states:- "That in view of the fact that the petitioner-appellant is a displaced lawyer from Lahore, Pakistan, where all his immovable assets were, and he having not been able to remove most of his personal effects and law library, the Hon'ble Chief Justice in his order dated 19th August, 1949, was pleased to expressly dispense with security, and the moneys due to him already from the com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the: statute, and that is for equal distribution among creditors." This being the law, in a case where the point in controversy is whether the company did or did not transfer their head office from Lahore to Amritsar or whether there was or was not a proper resolution by the company for voluntary winding up or whether voluntary liquidation was validly adopted and therefore whether an application for winding up under the supervision of the court was null and void for want of jurisdiction or not is a question in which the person really interested is the company and not the liquidator. If that is so, the liquidator has not the right to appeal on his own behalf. Buckley in his book on the Companies Acts, Edition 12, at page 168 says: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... court decreed the suit and from this decree the Committee alone appealed which was allowed by the Divisional Judge and a further ' appeal was taken to the Chief Court. It was held on the pleadings of the Committee that they had only acted as agents of the Secretary of State and the Committee was not competent to contest the appeal to the Divisional Judge when the principal had withdrawn from the contest. Le Rossignol, J., said at page 73:- "The Committee did not come into Court with the plea that they were the owners of the land, on the contrary they described themselves as mere trustees or agents on behalf of Government. It is the Committee and not the plaintiff who are on the horns of a dilemma. Had they described themselves as owners....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and Ltd. says: "At the hearing of a petition for winding up under supervision the liquidator and not the company ought to appear" and also on a passage at page 486 where the learned author says that the liquidator of a company in voluntary liquidation can apply to the Court for a supervision order and the contention is that as a result of the order of this Court by which winding up under the supervision of the Court was ordered Mr. Ratan Lal Chowla would have the right to appeal. I am unable to agree with this contention. The passage given in Ghosh's Indian Companies Act at the most says this that when an application has to be made to the Court for the making of an order of supervision the voluntary liquidator can move it and if there is an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the proceedings, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the liquidator could not file an appeal against the judgment of the Bench. In spite of the researches which have been made no case has been brought to our notice nor do I know of any where a liquidator as such was allowed to appeal. In a somewhat analogous case under the Bankruptcy Laws if a person is declared bankrupt and his appeal against this order succeeds I am very doubtful if the Official Receiver in whom the property would vest on the order of bankruptcy would be able to appeal against the order setting aside the order of bankruptcy. The next objection taken was that the company had not been made a party to these proceedings and therefore neither the petition nor the appea....