M/S. Sirsilk Limited(In Liqn) vs. No Respondent

Facts

This case involves an application filed by the Official Liquidator of M/s. Sirsilk Limited (in liquidation) before the High Court for the State of Telangana. The application, filed under Section 462 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Rules 298 and 306 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, sought permission to take on record the half-yearly accounts of the company for the period from 01.10.2022 to 31.03.2023. Additionally, the Official Liquidator requested permission to pay an audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the auditors, M/s. Murthy and 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. The application was supported by an affidavit and heard by the Court.

Held

The Court held that the half-yearly accounts of M/s. Sirsilk Limited (in liquidation) for the period from 01.10.2022 to 31.03.2023, along with the Auditor's Report dated 10.04.2025, were to be taken on record. Permission was granted to the Official Liquidator to pay the audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the auditors. Furthermore, the Court permitted the Official Liquidator to make the payment from the available funds of the company (in liquidation) or from the Estate and Establishment Fund if company funds were insufficient, with the condition that such payments would be reimbursed from the company's assets upon realization. The Court was satisfied with the reasons provided in the supporting affidavit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should take on record the half-yearly accounts of M/s. Sirsilk Limited (in liquidation) for the period 01.10.2022 to 31.03.2023, along with the Auditor's Report dated 10.04.2025. 2. Whether permission should be granted to the Official Liquidator to pay an audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the auditors, M/s. Murthy and Kanth, Chartered Accountants. 3. Whether the Official Liquidator should be permitted to meet the costs of the application from the available funds of the company (in liquidation) or the Estate and Establishment Fund, subject to reimbursement. The petitioner, the Official Liquidator, argued that the application was necessary for the proper conduct of the liquidation proceedings and that the requested permissions were routine administrative steps. The revenue or State did not appear to have made any specific arguments as the matter was an administrative application within the liquidation proceedings.