1. We must discharge the Rule. Though the matter is by no means clear, we feel that apart from any defect of jurisdiction the distribution of the proceeds in Court must be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proceeds came into Court before the application was made to us to pass an order in favour of the liquidator. The liquidators argument before us has been to a certain degree based upon the idea that the property of the company vested in the liquidator. It is better that that idea should be at once removed. The liquidator of a company differs in this respect from the Official Assignee in that the property of the company does not vest in him. I am of course leaving out of consideration the possible vesting of the property of an unregistered company under a vesting order.
2. The opposite party will get his costs of this Rule. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur.
Amrita Lal Kundu v. Anukul Chandra Das
Amrita Lal Kundu v. Anukul Chandra Das
(High Court Of Judicature At Calcutta)
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | 30-08-1915
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE JUSTICE Lawrence Jenkins, C.J
- HON'BLE JUSTICE Holmwood, J
Eq Citations
- (1916) ILR 43 CAL 586
- 34 IND. CAS. 253
- LQ/CalHC/1915/342
Head Note
Company Law — Liquidator — Vesting of property of company in — Held, liquidator of a company differs in this respect from Official Assignee in that property of company does not vest in him — Proceeds of company's assets came into Court before application was made to pass an order in favour of liquidator — Distribution of proceeds in Court must be governed by provisions of Code of Civil Procedure — Liquidation — Vesting of property of company in liquidator — Official Assignee
