Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Section 528 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Jaimal Singh Makin vs The Official Liquidator Of Majestic ... on 12 December, 1977
3. A Full Bench decision in Jaimal Singh Makin v. Official Liquidator, Majestic Financiers (P.)
Punjab Finance Private Limited (In ... vs Malhara Singh And Ors. (No. 1) on 31 May, 1973
Ltd. [1978] 48 Comp Cas 419 (Delhi) [FB]; AIR 1978 Delhi 169, and a single Bench decision of this court in Punjab Finance P. Ltd. v. Malhara Singh (No. 2) [1975] 45 Comp Cas 261; [1975] Tax LR 1670 were relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that a petition under Section 446(2)(b) of the Act would be competent against the company by a creditor. In none of these decisions, this point was specifically debated or dealt with. The question before the court in both these cases was as to whether an application was competent by the official liquidator under the said provision and what would be the court fee payable thereon. If the official liquidator is to file a claim against a third party on behalf of the company, obviously, the only remedy available is under Section 446 of the Act. These decisions, therefore, lend no support to the contention of the petitioners that both the remedies are open to them to enforce their claim and they can choose any one of them. I am, therefore, of the considered view that a petition by an unsecured creditor against the company would not be competent under Section 446(2)(b) of the Act and his remedy is only to prove his debt before the official liquidator in accordance with the provisions of Section 528 of the Act and the Rules referred to above. These petitions are, consequently, dismissed but without any order as to costs.
1