P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Bredenkamp and Hughes - (24 Aug 2023)

Court has power to allow liquidator to dispense with Rule 7.5(6) of Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules, 2004

Company

By originating process filed on 6 April 2023 (Application), the first and second plaintiffs as liquidators (Liquidators) of Maybach Consulting Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) sought orders under Section 488(2) and Section 480(d) of the Corporations Act, 2001. The Liquidators seek orders that they be released as liquidators of the Company and the Company be deregistered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) pursuant to Section 480(d) of the Act.

Section 480(d) of the Act provides that, where a liquidator has realised all of the company's property or so much of that property as can, in his or her opinion, be realised without needlessly protracting the winding up, and has distributed any final dividend to the creditors and adjusted the rights of the contributories among themselves and made any final return to the contributories, he or she may apply to the court for an order that he or she be released and that ASIC deregister the company.

Rule 7.5(6) of Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules, 2004, requires that, unless the court otherwise orders, the liquidator must serve copies of the interlocutory process accompanied by specified documents on each creditor who has proved a debt in the course of the winding up and each contributory. A court would ordinarily make an order releasing a liquidator, if it was satisfied that the relevant notifications had been given, no creditors had objected, all other evidence contemplated by Rule 7.5 had been placed before the court and the hearing of the application was in a forum at which any claim that a liquidator had been deficient in performing their role could be advanced. In addition, an order for deregistration of the company should also be sought with an order for a liquidator's release.

The Liquidators also seek an order dispensing with the requirement to serve updated accounts on creditors of the Company pursuant to Rule 7.5(6) of the Rules. The court's power to dispense with that requirement is found in that rule, which begins with the phrase 'unless the Court otherwise orders'. It is appropriate to dispense with the requirement to serve updated accounts on the Company's creditors under Rule 7.5(6) of the Rules. In these circumstances, present Court is satisfied by the evidence that this is a proper case for the release of the Liquidators and an order that ASIC deregister the Company.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs be released as joint and several liquidators of Maybach Consulting Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Company) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission deregister the Company.

Tags : LIQUIDATOR   RELEASE   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved