Skip to content


The South Indian Mills Company Ltd. by Its Managing Director, T. Sriman Kanthimathinatha Pillai Vs. Raja Bahadur Shivalal Motilal by Agent Govindlal Pithie - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in36Ind.Cas.617
AppellantThe South Indian Mills Company Ltd. by Its Managing Director, T. Sriman Kanthimathinatha Pillai
RespondentRaja Bahadur Shivalal Motilal by Agent Govindlal Pithie
Cases ReferredMadrid Bank v. Bayley
Excerpt:
companies act (vi of 1882), sections 137, 141 - order for winding up of company effect of--official liquidator appintment of appeal, whether lies. - .....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 re-hearing of there 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 orderded 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.2. 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.....
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 re-hearing of there 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 orderded 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.

2. 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 recognised in Fowler v. Broad's ptaent Night Light Co. (1893) 1 Ch. D. 724 : 41 W.R. 247, and Measures Brothers Limited v. Measures (1910) 1 Ch. D.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 recognised in Madrid Bank v. Bayley (1866) 2 Q.B 37, 15 L.T.292, and In re Diamond Fuel Co. (1879) 13 Ch. D. 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 //