Calcutta High Court
Amrita Lal Kundu vs Anukul Chandra Das on 30 August, 1915
Equivalent citations: 34IND. CAS.253, AIR 1916 CALCUTTA 918
JUDGMENT
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 liquidator's 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.