In re Eastern Province – Transport Co. Ltd., Procetti v. Administrator-General, Misc. Civ. Case 19-D-69, 5/5/69, Georges, C. J.

In re Eastern Province – Transport Co. Ltd., Procetti v. Administrator-General, Misc. Civ. Case 19-D-69, 5/5/69, Georges, C. J.

This was an application that the dissolution of the Eastern Province Transport Co. Ltd., which was struck off the Register under section 383 of the Companies Ordinance, be declared void and that the name of the Company be restored to the Register. The facts established that the applicant company was a person interested in having dissolution of the company declared void. The applicant company had a claim in a running down action in which it was necessary to join the company as a defendant. The application was made under section 282 of the Companies Ordinance.  The Registrar of companies did not conditions; (i) That the applicants should give an undertaking that they should put the company into liquidation immediately after the action had been completed and their interest had ended; and (ii) That there should be a proviso that in the case of creditors whose debts were not statute – barred on the date of the striking off then the period between the date of the striking off and the restoration should not be taken into account for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. For support we referred to the case of In re Donal Kenyon Ltd. [1956] 1 W.L.R. 1397.

            Held: “Section 282 does state that the Court may make an order on such terms as it thinks fit, but I am not satisfied that this phrase would empower me to suspend the operation of the Statute of Limitations in the manner achieved in the case of In re Donald Kanyon. I think the terms must be terms binding on the parties to the suit – In this particular case the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not think the Court has power to make the second proviso asked for by Mr. Rahim.

(2) “As regards the first condition ……. It appears to me that it is an undertaking which I should not ask the petitioner to assume, for the very simple reason that the petitioner may not be able to ask that the company be liquidated immediately after this action. The petitioner may not be successful. He may never become a creditor of the company; therefore, he would be in no position to see to it that it was liquidated.”(3) “I will, however, as a condition to the order ask that the petitioner should, within twenty-eight days of the fulfillment of his purposes, notify the Registrar of Companies of that fact, so that the Registrar will then be in a position to take such steps as he may think fit as regards removing the name of the company from the Register. Subject to this condition, I would grant the order as prayed.”