1947 (9) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issued by the Company are represented by counsel, and one shareholder appears by counsel. 2. The company was registered in January, 1929, and has an authorised capital of Rs. 23 lakhs divided into 20,000 ordinary and 3,000 preference shares, each of the face value of Rs. 100. The issued capital is 11,290 ordinary shares and 1,162 preference shares all of which except to a small extent of Rs. 120 are fully paid. Thus the paid-up capital of the Company amounts to Rs. 12,45,200. The petitioner is a creditor of the company for a capital sum of Rs. 1,06,465 odd plus interest. On the 15th July, he served a statutory notice demanding payment but apart from a payment on account of Rs. 25,000 the Company has failed to meet that demand. Prima fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e company's. Mills were closed on the 24th May this year and that since that date no business has been done. Counsel for the trustees of the first debenture-holders has explained that his clients took over the control of the business on the 14th February, 1947, for non-payment of interest. It was then arranged between the Board of the Company and the trustees that the trustees would work the mills for three months and would defer bringing their security to sale for that period. Counsel described this as a last effort to see whether the company could be run profitably. The money required (about 2 lakhs of rupees) to work the company for the three months was put up by the petitioner who was then or had previously been in the service of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sentatives, and its property at Rajahmundry. On account of these circumstances and on account of the fact that the partners of the managing agents of the company and the trustees of the debenture-holders are all residing at Bombay, the petitioner fears for the safety of the company's assets. It is not suggested that these fears are unjustified. 8. I am satisfied that this is a case in which the appointment of a provisional liquidator will be proper. Counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the following observations of Lord Romilly, M.R., in In re The Railway Finance Co. 14 L. T. 507 that learned Judge observed: I do not appoint a provisional liquidator unless it appears that the company cannot go on." and in In re Lond....