In The Matter Of M/S.Arrow Metalspin Limited (In Liqn) vs. No Respondent

Facts

The Official Liquidator, attached to the High Court of Telangana, filed a Company Application (No. 181 of 2025) under Section 462 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Rules 298 and 306 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The application sought to take on record the half-yearly accounts of M/s Arrow Metalspin Limited (in liquidation) for the period from April 1, 2023, to September 30, 2023. It also requested permission to pay an audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the independent auditors, M/s Murthy & Kanth, Chartered Accountants, and to meet the costs of the application from the company's funds or the Estate and Establishment Fund, subject to reimbursement upon asset realization. The application was supported by an affidavit and heard by the High Court.

Held

The Court, having considered the supporting affidavit and the half-yearly accounts, ordered as follows: Firstly, the half-yearly accounts of M/s Arrow Metalspin Limited (in liquidation) for the period from 01.04.2023 to 30.09.2023, along with the Auditor's Report dated 27.05.2025 (submitted on 03.06.2025), were taken on record. Secondly, permission was granted to the Official Liquidator to pay an audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the auditors. Thirdly, permission was also granted to the Official Liquidator to make this payment from the available funds of the company in liquidation, or from the Estate and Establishment Fund if the company's account was depleted, subject to reimbursement upon realization of the company's assets. The Court was satisfied with the reasons provided in the affidavit and the submissions made by the Official Liquidator's counsel.

Key Issues

1. Whether the half-yearly accounts of the company in liquidation for the period 01.04.2023 to 30.09.2023, along with the Independent Auditors' Report dated 04.07.2025, should be taken on record. The petitioner (Official Liquidator) argued for the acceptance of these accounts and report to facilitate the company's liquidation proceedings. The revenue or State did not appear to have filed any specific arguments against this procedural step. 2. Whether permission should be granted to pay an audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the auditors. The petitioner contended that this payment is necessary for the audit of the company's accounts as part of the liquidation process. No opposing arguments were recorded from the revenue or State. 3. Whether the costs associated with the application can be met from the company's available funds or the Estate and Establishment Fund. The petitioner sought this permission to ensure the smooth functioning of the liquidation process, with a provision for reimbursement. The revenue or State did not present any counter-arguments.