P L D 1985 Lahore 404(2) (PLP)

The Official Liquidator, Mr. M. Z. Khalil, states that the affairs of the respondent company have been finally wound up and there are no outstanding assets and liabilities of the company. Order of dissolution of the company is, therefore, passed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

2. Mr. M. Z. Khalil submits that since he has worked in this case, as Official Liquidator, for about 5 years and has also attended this Court as such on as many as 7 occasions, appropriate remuneration may be ordered to be paid to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in rule 41 of the Banking Companies (Lahore High Court) Rules, .1973, specific slabs have been provided for payment of remuneration to Official Liquidators with reference to the recoveries made . by them but as in the instant case no recovery was effected by the Official Liquidator he is not entitled to any remuneration. Conceding that no recovery was made by him, it was maintained by Mr. M. Z. Khalil that it is a case of no liabilities and no assets and, therefore, the question of his making any recovery did not arise.

3. Rule 41 reads as follows : `(41) Fees to be charged by the Official Liquidator. Unless otherwise ordered by the Judge, the Official Liquidator will be entitled to his fees according to the following scale (1)(a) In the High Court, upon the total assets realised or brought to credit, including realization from calls on contributories, and not being money received and spent on carrying on the business : On the first Rs. 10,000 or fraction thereof ?????????? 5 % , On the next Rs. 15,000 or fraction thereof ?????????? 9 On the next Rs. 25,000 or fraction thereof ?????????? 2-1/2% On the next Rs. 50,000 or fraction thereof??????????? 2% On the sum above Rs. 1,00,000 ????? 4????????????????????? 4% (b) On rents recovered ???????? 5????????????????????????????????? 5% (2) When the Official Liquidator collects, calls or realises property for debenture holders or other secured creditor, the same rate of fees as under clause (1)(a) above will be paid out of the proceeds of such calls or property. (3) When the Official liquidator acts as a trustee under a scheme of arrangement, he will be entitled to such remuneration, not exceeding the rate of fees under clause (1)(a), above, as the Court shall allow. (4) When Official Liquidator performs any special duties not provided for above, he will be entitled to the remunerations fixed by the Court.

4. It is true that under rule 41 remuneration is ordinarily to be paid to an Official Liquidator on the basis of the recovery made by him but it has not been provided, in the rule that no remuneration shall be paid to the Official Liquidator if no recovery is effected. According to the opening part of rule 41, which has been underlined* by me, Court has the discretion to allow remuneration in disregard of the guidelines set out in that rule. In other words, the Court has discretion to allow remuneration under rule 41 at rates other than those given in the said rule as also in a case in which there is no recovery. If this Court has entrusted some duties to a parson, it should also pay him for doing those duties. If a contrary view is taken, Advocates of this Court, who are generally appointed as Official Liquidators, will be reluctant to accept appointment as Official Liquidators and this will adversely affect the progress of company cases. 1, therefore, hold that in appropriate cases an Official Liquidator can be allowed remuneration even if he has not affected any recovery.

5. In the present case, the Official Liquidator made report No. 2 in which it was submitted by him that there were no assets and no liabilities of the company, and suggested dissolution of the company. This report was filed on 8th July, 1981 but the order of dissolution of the company was not passed on the basis of the said report and the matter was adjourned from time to time. The Official Liquidator, therefore, continued appearing before this Court on the dates fixed after 8th July, 1981. If the Court) did not dispose of the case on 8th July, 1981 or soon thereafter, under section 194 of the Companies Act, 1913, it is no fault of the Official Liquidator. He remained associated with this case for about five years. It was he who had made efforts to find out assets and liabilities of the company, although there turned out to be none, and then filed his two reports. He invited claims, although none was received by him. He had also examined the record of the company before submitting reports. He attended the Court on several occasions in pursuance of the order of this Court. It will, therefore, not be fair to refuse remuneration to him.

6. In result, I allow remuneration of Rs. 5,000 to the Official Liquidator. It shall be paid by the petitioners. M. B. A. ???????? Order accordingly.