The Official Liquidator v. Nil
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Hence the Company Application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Companies Act, 2013 s. 467
Judgment
Before: The Honourable Mr.Justice T.R.RAVI Monday, the 26 th day of February, 2024/7 th Phalguna, 1945 Applicant:- The Official Liquidator, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, representing M/s.B.S.T.Ltd., (in liquidation) Respondent:- Nil Co.Application under Section 467 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 181 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 filed by the applicant above named praying for an order to:- a) permit the Official Liquidator to dispense with actions taken as per Rule 180 to 183 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and to issue the Final Settlement of Notice in Form No.80 to M/s.Amrex Marketing Private Ltd. 26, Belvedere Road, Kolkata – 700 027. b) permit the Official Liquidator to incur necessary expenses in connection with the settlement of list of contributories. c) pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the premises of the case. This Application coming on for orders on this day upon hearing Sri.K.Moni, Standing Counsel for Official Liquidator, the Court passed the following:-
Operative part
O R D E R This application has been filed for permission to the Official Liquidator to dispense with action taken as per Rule 180 to 183 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and to issue the Final Settlement of Notice in Form No.80 to M/s.Amrex Marketing Private Ltd. Having gone through the application, I am convinced that the application has to be allowed. Hence the Company Application is allowed. /True Copy/ Sd/- T.R.RAVI JUDGE Section Officer
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence the Company Application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013 — s. 467.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.