M RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. H PUTTASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original second appeal is filed against the order of the learned company Judge, dated 3-6-2002, passed in Company Application No. 563 of 2001 arising out of Co. A. No. 1289 of 2000 in Company Petition No. 8 of 1974.

(2.) IT is stated that the appellant-respondent was designated as Official liquidator attached to the High Court. Pending company petitions, the matter was transferred vide order dated 11-4-2000 passed in C. A. No. 1289 of 2000 in Co. P. No. 8 of 1974 and respondent 1 became the Official Liquidator under Section 448 (1 ) (b) of the Companies Act to work as Official Receiver in civil Courts and to take possession of the records. The grievance of the learned Counsel for the applicant-respondent is that despite expiry of the term and the appointment of M. Ramachandra Reddy as Official Receiver of bangalore District, still the learned Single Judge has extended H. Puttaswamy's term invoking Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules (in short, the 'rules') to continue with the work entrusted to him vide order dated 11-4-2000. The order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

(3.) ON the other hand, G. S. Visweswara, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that a number of company applications have been transferred and under the circumstances, the learned Company Judge has invoked the powers and allowed H. Puttaswamy to continue even though his term has expired. Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of Section 524 of the Companies Act, the Court has got power to make impugned appointment and to extend the term. Therefore, no interference is called for.