Sisir Kumar Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order by which a learned Judge granted leave under section 446(1) of the Companies Act to the appellant to institute a suit against the respondent represented by its provisional Liquidator on paying a sum of Rs. 250 as costs of the Company. It appears on a perusal of the order that the learned Judge directed payment to be made to the provisional Liquidator on his stating through his Solicitor that he had no funds in his hands. It is clear that the order was made to enable the provisional Liquidator to defend the suit which the appellant intended to file against the Company.
(2.) The appellant who was the petitioner before the learned Judge, stated in its affidavit that the petitioner was a secured creditor and was desirous of filing a suit for enforcing its security and realising its dues.
(3.) Mr. H. M. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal, contended before us that in granting leave to institute the suit the learned Judge should not have put his client on terms. He stated that payment has been made to the provisional Liquidator as directed by the learned Judge. The suit has been filed. He has preferred the appeal because similar orders have been made in other cases by other learned Judges and in some of those, substantial amounts have been directed to be paid. To call upon creditors to put the provisional Liquidator in funds as a condition precedent to grant of leave under section 446(1) seems to have hardened into a practice.;