Skip to content


The South Indian Mills Company Limited by Its Managing Director T. Sriman Kanthimathinatha Pillai Vs. Raja Bahadur Shivalal Motilal by Agent Govindalal Pittie - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1917)ILR40Mad706
AppellantThe South Indian Mills Company Limited by Its Managing Director T. Sriman Kanthimathinatha Pillai
RespondentRaja Bahadur Shivalal Motilal by Agent Govindalal Pittie
Cases ReferredMadeid Bank v. Bayly
Excerpt:
indian companies act (vi of 1882), sections 137 and 141 - appointment, of official liquidator, after order for winding up company--appeal by the managing director against order appointing official liquidator, competency of. - .....no. 266 of 1915 is against an order appointing an official liquidator for the winding up of a company. appeal against order no. 265 of 1915 is against the lower court's order refusing a rehearing of these appointment proceedings. both the appeals purport to be preferred by the company through its managing director. there is a preliminary objection to them that the company having been ordered to be wound up and the winding-up order having been confirmed by this court, neither the company nor its director can prefer such appeals. the objection is, in our opinion, valid. section. 141 of act vi of 1882, under which the proceedings took place, provides that, after an order for winding-up has been made until an official liquidator has been appointed, all the property of the company shall.....
Judgment:

1. The Appeal against Order No. 266 of 1915 is against an order appointing an official liquidator for the winding up of a company. Appeal against Order No. 265 of 1915 is against the Lower Court's order refusing a rehearing of these appointment proceedings. Both the appeals purport to be preferred by the company through its Managing Director. There is a preliminary objection to them that the company having been ordered to be wound up and the winding-up order having been confirmed by this Court, neither the company nor its director can prefer such appeals. The objection is, in our opinion, valid. Section. 141 of Act VI of 1882, under which the proceedings took place, provides that, after an order for winding-up has been made until an official liquidator has been appointed, all the property of the company shall be deemed to be in the custody of the Court. Section 137 provides that the winding-up order shall be deemed to be notice of discharge to the servants of the company except (what is not in question here) when the business of the company is continued, and accordingly, the employment of the Managing Director had ended before the appeal was filed by him in this case. The general principle that directors cease to be such and cannot institute proceedings for the company after the winding-up order, is recognized in Fowler v. Broad's Patent Night Light Company (1883) 1 Ch. D. 724 and Measures Brothers, Limited v. Measures (1910) 1 Ch. 336 the special exceptions in favour of their appointments continuing for the purpose of appealing against the winding-up order and for the enforcement of their liability which are recognized in Madeid Bank v. Bayly (1866) 2 Q.B. 37 In re Diamond Fuel Company (1879) 13 Ch., 400 and Halsbury on the Laws of England, volume 5, page 420, being irrelevant in the present connection. The Managing Director's appointment accordingly had ceased when he proposed to appeal, as such, on behalf of the company. The appeals have therefore been preferred by no competent person. They are dismissed with costs payable by the Managing Director personally.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //