AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.
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.