JUDGMENT 1. [an appeal No. 129 of 1961 against the above judgment was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.] these matters came up before me for administrative directions on the 25th November last. Upon going through the report of the Assistant Registrar (Company) I directed that they should appear in my list on the 16th December, 1960 to give an opportunity to the Central Government and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court to make their submissions on the points raised. On the 16th December 1960, Mr. R. Chaudhuri appeared for the Central Government and the Official Liquidator and wanted to contend that the relevant rules of the Supreme Court were ultra vires the Companies Act, 1956. I thereupon requested Mr. Gouri Mitter to appeal is amicus curiae. On the 20th January, 1961 the matters were heard and Mr. Chaudhuri made his submissions I then directed the Assistant Registrar (Company) to write, to the Registrar of the Supreme Court informing him of Mr. Chaudhuri's contentions. The Assistant Registrar has complied with my directions but, I am told, there is no response from the Registrar of the Supreme Court. I would at the outset express my deep gratitude to Mr. Gouri Mitter and his learned junior, Mr. Panja for the assistance they have given me to determine the questions involved. 2. The facts are that every Official Liquidator, upon his appointment, as such, files statements of accounts, every six months during the continuance of his acting as such liquidator. Upon the filing of each of these statements, the Registrar of this Court issues a notice to the Official Liquidator to call on him to enable him to nominate an auditor from the panel of auditors maintained by this Court, to fix his remuneration and to make over the statement to the auditor concerned. The liquidator instead of attending personally writes to the Registrar suggesting the remuneration of the auditor. The Registrar thereafter appoints the auditor, fixes his remuneration upon reference to the relevant accounts and rules of this Court and issues a letter of appointment to the auditor and a copy thereof is sent to the liquidator. The liquidator instead of attending personally writes to the Registrar suggesting the remuneration of the auditor. The Registrar thereafter appoints the auditor, fixes his remuneration upon reference to the relevant accounts and rules of this Court and issues a letter of appointment to the auditor and a copy thereof is sent to the liquidator. The relevant rules of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 are, as fallows :- Rule 301:-As soon as the Accounts are filed, the Registrar shall forward to the auditor one copy thereof for purposes of audit with a requisition in Form No. 147 requesting that the accounts may be audited and a certificate of audit issued to the Court not later than 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the account. Rule 302:-The accounts shall be audited by one or more chartered accountants appointed by the Court or if the Court so directs by the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts of the State concerned. The audit shall be a complete check of the accounts of the Official Liquidator and of each of the Companies in liquidation in his charge. The Official Liquidator shall produce before the auditor all his books and vouchers for the purpose of audit, and shall give the auditor all such explanations as may be required of him in respect of the accounts. Rule 303:-After the audit of each of the accounts of the Official liquidator filed in Court, the auditor shall forward to the Registrar a certificate of audit relating to the account with his observations and comments, if any, on the account together with a copy thereof, and shall forward another copy to the Official Liquidator. The Registrar shall file the original certificate with the records and forward the copy to the Registrar of Companies together with a copy of the accounts to which it relates. The Registrar shall file the original certificate with the records and forward the copy to the Registrar of Companies together with a copy of the accounts to which it relates. Rule 304:- (1) Audit fees according to the following scale on the gross amount brought to credit, including the produce of calls on contributories, interest on investments and rents from properties, but after deducting (a) the amount spent out of the money received in carrying on the business of the company and (b) the amounts paid by the Official Liquidator to secured creditors (other than debenture holders), shall be paid to the auditor and debited to the account of the liquidation to which the audit relates:- On the amount brought to credit including the produce of calls on contributories, interest on investments and rents from properties but after deducting (a) the amount spent out of the money received in carrying on the business of the company, and (b) amounts paid by the Official Liquidator to secured creditors (other than debenture holders. . . . . . . . percent on. On disbursements other than payments to secured creditors not being debenture holders. . . . . . . . . . per cent. (2) Where the audit is by the Examiner of Local Funds Accounts, audit fees calculated on the above scale shall be paid into the Reserve Bank of India to the credit of the State Government concerned. In the above matters, the Official Liquidator has suggested remuneration of the Auditor upon calculation not in accordance with Rule 304. 3. By letter dated the 4th May, 1960 this Court informed the Official Liquidator that the remuneration suggested by him was not in accordance with the rule. The Official Liquidator by his reply dated 18th/20th June, 1960 states that in calculating the audit fees accordance with Rule 304, it is observed that in some cases, the audit fees so calculated, become much higher than what were allowed previously and that this anomaly has therefore, been referred to the Department of Company Law Administration, New Delhi for instructions and that upon hearing from this department, the exact amount of remuneration to be paid to the Auditors concerned would be intimated. The Official Liquidator submits further that Rule 304 has no application till the secured creditors are actually paid off. 4. The Official Liquidator submits further that Rule 304 has no application till the secured creditors are actually paid off. 4. On the 24th June, 1960, Law, J. was pleased to grant three weeks time to the Official Liquidator for obtaining instructions from the Central Government. By letter dated the 8th July, 1960, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, requested the Registrar of the Supreme Court to consider the points raised by the Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta and communicate to him the Registrar's comments. A copy of the letter was sent to the Assistant Registrar (company) of this Court by the Official Liquidator on the 12th July, 1960. Thereupon Law, J. granted a further extension of time to the Official Liquidator till the 31st August, 1960. The Official Liquidator on the 27th August, 1960 again asked for an extension till the 30th November, 1960 which was granted by Law, J. On the 16th/17th November, 1960 the Official Liquidator writes to the Assistant Registrar (Company) that the Under Secretary to the Government of India has informed him that as the language of Rule 304 stands, audit fees at the prescribed rates can not be paid before payment has been made to the secured creditors and that necessary orders from this Court may be obtained in this regard. The Official Liquidator submits further that, "In respect of the Companies in which there are secured creditors the fees of the auditors for the audit of the half yearly statement of accounts may be fixed by the Registrar of this Hon'ble Court in consultation with the undersigned till the payment is made to the secured creditors and thereafter i. e., after payment of the claims of the secured creditors the fees of the auditors may be paid in accordance with Rule 304 of the Companies (Court) Rules. " The entire file was placed before me on the 25th November, 1960 when I directed the matters to be placed in the list. At the hearing Mr. R. Chaudhuri appearing for the Central Government and the Official Liquidator did not try to support, save as hereinafter stated, any of the contentions of his respective clients in the correspondence referred to above. Learned counsel did not argue that under Rule 304 the auditors' fees could be paid only after payment of the claims of the secured creditors. R. Chaudhuri appearing for the Central Government and the Official Liquidator did not try to support, save as hereinafter stated, any of the contentions of his respective clients in the correspondence referred to above. Learned counsel did not argue that under Rule 304 the auditors' fees could be paid only after payment of the claims of the secured creditors. On the contrary learned Counsel's proposition is that, there is no substance in the contention that the expression "amounts paid by the Official Liquidator to the secured creditors" in Rule 304 should be read as "amounts payable by the Official Liquidator to the secured creditors. "Learned Counsel submits that in liquidation proceedings a secured creditor can do one of three things, (i) he can either rely on his security and ignore the liquidation proceedings, or (ii) he can value his security and prove for the balance, or (iii) he can surrender his security and prove for his whole debt. If the secured creditor choses the first course he stands outside the liquidation proceedings. The secured properties are not held by the liquidator and Rule 304 or any other rule relating to liquidation would not apply to these properties at all. Where however the secured creditor chooses the second or the third course the rule is applicable to him. In this context the provision in Rule 304 that audit fees would be calculated after deducting, inter alia, "the amounts paid by the Official Liquidator to secured creditors" means the amounts actually paid and not to be paid or payable. The factum of payment is the criterion for deduction. It is true that Rule 304 prescribes that auditors are entitled to per cent on disbursements, "other than payments to secured creditors not being debenture holders. " Here according to learned counsel, the rule-makers were thinking of the actual state of affairs. He has strongly urged that when secured creditors have come into the liquidation proceedings and have invoked the machinery of liquidation they must stand by the rule as framed. They are fully aware of the rules and provisions that are to be observed in the administration of the assets. Having elected their own course they are bound by the machinery provided for the purpose of administration. 5. Now, Rule 304 merely lays down the method of fixation of the quantum of audit fees. They are fully aware of the rules and provisions that are to be observed in the administration of the assets. Having elected their own course they are bound by the machinery provided for the purpose of administration. 5. Now, Rule 304 merely lays down the method of fixation of the quantum of audit fees. The order in which payment is to be made by the Official Liquidator is prescribed in Rule 338, and the two Rules must be reconciled. The whole process of audit which is a beneficial provision in the Companies Act of 1956 would otherwise be rendered ineffective as no auditor would accept the term that his fees would not be paid by the Liquidator until the secured creditors have been paid off. The relevant portion of Rule 338 is as follows:-"the assets of a Company in a winding up by the Court remaining after payment of the fees and expenses properly incurred in preserving, realizing or getting in the assets including where the Company has previously commenced to be wound up voluntarily, such remuneration, costs and expenses as the Court may allow to the Liquidator in such voluntary winding up, shall subject to any order of the Court and to the rights of secured creditors, if any, be liable to the following payments which shall be made in the following order of priority, namely 6. According to Mr. R. Chaudhuri the audit of the liquidator's accounts keeps the liquidation in check with an eye to preserving the assets. To the extent unauthorised or unnecessary expenditure is prevented, there is corresponding preservation of the assets. The fees paid to auditors therefore come within the expression "payment of the fees. . . . . . . . in preserving. . . . . . . . the assets" in Rule 338. The expression "subject. . . . . . . . to the rights of the secured creators if any,. . . . . . . . . . " is there; but the rights of the secured creditors who have voluntarily selected the winding up machinery are controlled by the rules and the statutory provisions relating to winding up. In other words payment of the auditor's fees is not affected by the order of priority suggested in Rule 338. . . . . . . . . . " is there; but the rights of the secured creditors who have voluntarily selected the winding up machinery are controlled by the rules and the statutory provisions relating to winding up. In other words payment of the auditor's fees is not affected by the order of priority suggested in Rule 338. There is considerable force in these contentions of learned counsel for the Central Government and the Official Liquidator and they certainly deserve serious consideration; but having regard to his main argument that Rules 301 to 304 of the Companies (Courts) Rules, 1959 are ultra vires the Companies Act, 1956, it is unnecessary for me to go into these questions. 7. Incidentally Mr. Chaudhuri has also urged that, Rule 304 is inequitable. He has placed before me a chart of accounts already audited. I find from this chart, for instance, that the accounts of The Fire and General Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (in liquidation) for the period 28th May 1957 to 27th November, 1957 have been audited. The total realisation and disbursement of this company is Rs. 4,43,000/ -. The audit fee calculated at the old rate comes to Rs. 20/- only. But if it has to be worked out in accordance with the method laid down in Rule 304 the auditor is entitled to receive Rs. 221/ -. In this case there has been no realisation out of the assets of the secured creditors. Similarly in the case of the Barasat Bashirhat Light Railway Co., Ltd. (in Liquidation) the period of the accounts is from 28th May, 1958 to 27th November, 1958. The total realisation and disbursement is Rs. 25,51,800/ -. At the old rate the auditor could demand a fee of Rs. 50/- only. But if Rule 304 be applied he is entitled to the sum of Rs. 12,759/ -. Here the total amount to be paid to the secured creditors is Rs. 15,00,000/ -. Indeed in this chart comparative figures have been set out in respect of five different Companies in liquidation and in four of them, I find the auditor's fees payable under the new rule much higher than what would have been paid to them under the previous practice of this Court. 15,00,000/ -. Indeed in this chart comparative figures have been set out in respect of five different Companies in liquidation and in four of them, I find the auditor's fees payable under the new rule much higher than what would have been paid to them under the previous practice of this Court. There is no doubt therefore, that a considerable part of the assets in the hands of the liquidator would be eaten up in many cases by the application of Rule 304 which can be avoided if the previous system of this Court, could be resorted to. It appears that the amount of remuneration fixed under Rule 304 is not co-related to the work involved. 8. I shall now come to the main contention of learned counsel for the Official Liquidator and the Central Government. Section 843 of the Company's Act provides, inter alia, as follows:- " (1) The Supreme Court, after consulting the High Courts,- (a) shall make rules providing for all matters relating to the winding up of companies which, by this Act, are to be prescribed, and may make rules providing for all such matters as may be prescribed, except those reserved to the Central Government by sub-section (5) of section 503, sub-section (3) of section 550, section 552 and subsection (3) of section 555; and (b) may make rules consistent with the Code of Civil Procedure, (V of 1908)- (1) as to the mode of proceedings to be had for winding up a Company in High Courts and in Courts subordinate thereto (ii) for the Voluntary winding up of companies, whether by members or by creditors; (iii) for the holding of meetings of creditors and members in connection with proceedings under section 391; (iv) for giving effect to the provisions of this Act as to the reduction of capital; and (v) generally for all applications to be made to the Court under the provisions of this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power the Supreme Court may by such rules, enable or require all or any of the powers and duties conferred and imposed on the Court by thin Act, in respect of the following matters, that is to say:- (a) the holding and conducting of meetings to ascertain the wishes of creditors and contributories ; (b) the settling on lists of contributories and the rectifying of the register of members where required, and collecting and applying the assets; (c) the payment, delivery, conveyance, surrender or transfer of money, property, books or papers to the liquidators; (d) the making of calls; and (e) the fixing of a time within which debts and claims shall be proved: to be exercised or performed by the Official Liquidator or any other Liquidator as an Officer of the Court, and subject to the control of the Court; Provided that the Liquidator shall not, without the special leave of the Court, rectify the register of members or make any call. . . . . . . . . . " In the context of Rules 301 to 304 set out earlier in this judgment, the portions of sections 643 which I have underlined above appear to be relevant. In other words, the Supreme Court (a) shall make rules providing for all matters relating to the winding up of Companies which, by the Companies Act, 1956, are to be prescribed and (b) may make rules providing for all such matters as may be prescribed. The Supreme Court may also make rules for the voluntary winding up of Companies. The word "prescribed" has been defined in section 2 (33) of the Companies Act. The definition is as follows: "prescribed" means, as respects the provisions of this Act relating to the winding up of Companies except sub-section (5) of section 503, sub-section (3) of section 550, section 552, and sub section (3) of section 555, prescribed by rules made by the Supreme Court in consultation with High Courts and as respects the other provisions of this Act including sub-section (5) of section 503, sub-section (3) of section 550 and sub-section (3) of section 555, prescribed by rules made by the Central Government. " 9. It would now be necessary to consider the provision of section 462 of the Companies Act. " 9. It would now be necessary to consider the provision of section 462 of the Companies Act. This section runs thus :- "462 Audit of Liquidator's accounts: (1) The liquidator shall, at such times as may be prescribed but not less than twice in each year during the tenure of his office, present to the Court an account of his receipts and payments as liquidator. (2) The account shall be in the prescribed form, shall be made in duplicate and shall be verified by a declaration in the prescribed form. (3) The Court shall, cause the account to be audited in such manner as it thinks fit; and for the purpose of the audit, the liquidator shall furnish the Court with such vouchers and information as the Court may require and the Court may, at any time, require the production of and inspect, any books or accounts kept by the liquidator. (4) When the account has been audited, one copy thereof shall be filed and kept by the Court, and the other copy shall be delivered to the Registrar for filing, and each copy shall be open to the inspection of any creditor contributory on person interested. (5) The liquidator shall cause the account when audited or summary thereof to be printed, and shall send a printed copy of the account or summary by post to every creditor and to every contributory: provided that the Court may in any case dispense with compliance with this sub-section. " 10. It is clear from section 462 that the Supreme Court may prescribe by rules the number of times the liquidator has to present an account to the Court but not less than twice in each year. And the Supreme Court must prescribe the form in which the accounts shall be presented. But the manner in which the account is to be audited has been left to the Court having jurisdiction under the Act. The Supreme Court has no power to prescribe rules relating to the manner in which the Court shall cause the liquidator's account to be audited. There is no doubt that Rules 301 to 304 deal with the manner of auditing and the Supreme Court has in this respect gone beyond the powers conferred on it by section 643 of the Companies Act. There is no doubt that Rules 301 to 304 deal with the manner of auditing and the Supreme Court has in this respect gone beyond the powers conferred on it by section 643 of the Companies Act. Although under section 462 (3) it is the Court having jurisdiction which shall cause the liquidator's account to be audited in such manner as it thinks fit; Rule 301 lays down that as soon as the accounts are filed, the Registrar shall forward to the auditor a copy thereof for purposes of audit with a requisition in Form No, 147 requesting that the accounts may be audited and a. certificate of audit issued to the Court not later than two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the account. First of all the scheme, of section 462 is that the liquidator presents his account to the Court and it is filed when it has been audited. It may he that in Rule 301 by the word "filed" is meant "presented" to the Court by the liquidator. Secondly, if the Court is to cause the account to be audited in such manner as it thinks fit there is no scope for a direction on the Registrar to forward the liquidator's account to the auditor as soon as it is filed with specified requests to the auditor. Similarly, in Rule 302 it is said that the account shall be audited by one or more chartered accountants appointed by the Court or, if the Court so direct, by the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts of the State concerned. It is further provided in this Rule that the Official Liquidator shall produce before the auditor all his books and vouchers for the purpose of the audit, and shall give the auditor all such explanations as may be required of him in respect of the account. But sub-section 3 of section 462 prescribes that for the purpose of the audit, the liquidator shall furnish the Court with such vouchers and information as the Court may require, and the Court may, at any time, require the production of, and inspect, any books or accounts kept by the liquidator. The audit, according to Rule 302, shall be a complete check of the accounts of the Official Liquidator and each of the companies in liquidation in his charge. The audit, according to Rule 302, shall be a complete check of the accounts of the Official Liquidator and each of the companies in liquidation in his charge. All these provisions interfere with the powers of the court as to the manner of audit. Under Rule 302 the account must be audited either by a chartered accountant or by the Examiner of Local Funds Accounts. There may be, in fact there are, Companies in liquidation which cannot bear the expenses of an audit of this description. I am told in cases of such Companies the Court causes the accounts to be scrutinized by one of its own competent Officers. But that is no longer permissible in view of the provisions of Rule 302. In section 226 the qualifications of an auditor of a company have been laid down but there is no such prescription in section 462. Then again sub-section 4 of section 462 prescribes that when the account has been audited, one copy thereof shall be filed and kept by the Court, and the other copy shall be delivered to the Registrar for filing and each copy shall be open to the inspection of any creditor, contributory or person interested. But in Rule 303 It has been laid down that after the audit of each of the accounts of the Official Liquidator filed in Court the auditor shall forward to the Registrar a certificate of audit relating to the account with his observations and comments in any of the accounts, together with a copy thereof, and shall forward another copy to the Official Liquidator. The Registrar shall file the original certificate with the records and forward the copy to the Registrar of Companies together with a copy of the account to which it relates. Here again the framers of the Rule have used the word "filed" and not "presented" as required by section 462 (1). It is to be observed further that the requirements of sub-section 4 of section 462 and those of Rule 303 are not the same. It is well known with regard to the effect of an enabling Act that if the legislature enables something to be done, it gives power at the same time, by necessary implication, to do everything which is indispensable for the purpose of carrying out the purpose in view: Craies on Statute Law, 5th Edition, page 239. It is well known with regard to the effect of an enabling Act that if the legislature enables something to be done, it gives power at the same time, by necessary implication, to do everything which is indispensable for the purpose of carrying out the purpose in view: Craies on Statute Law, 5th Edition, page 239. The legislature in the instant case enables the Court to cause the liquidator's account to be audited in such manner as it thinks fit. It gives power to the Court by necessary implication to do everything which is indispensable for the purpose of carrying out the object of the legislature. These implied powers of the Court have been taken away by Rules 301, 302 and 303. And if these Rules have not been validly made, Rule 304 is also of no effect. Reference may as well be made in this connection to Maxwell on "interpretation of Statutes" 10th Edition, pages 361 to 367. Under section 3 (51) of the General Clauses Act 1897 "rule" shall mean a Rule in the exercise of a power conferred by any enactment, and shall include a regulation made as a Rule under any enactment. It appears that section 643 of the Companies Act does not confer any power on the Supreme Court to make Rules 301 to 304. 11. It may also be observed that in sections 641 and 642 of the Companies Act, the Central Government is given powers (a) to alter Schedules and (b) to make Rules. But such alterations and Rules are to be placed before each House of Parliament. In section 643 the Supreme Court naturally has unfettered powers of making Rules. In this connection it is relevant to quote following passages in Maxwell on "interpretation on Statutes," 10th Edition at pages 302 to 303:- "where, however, the Statute conferring the power to make bylaws enacts that any such Laws consistent with the provisions of the Statute and not repugnant to any other Law in force shall have the force of law when confirmed by the Executive, it is doubtful whether a Court would not be precluded from questioning the reasonableness of such by-laws or whether they are ultra vires unless it be in some very extreme case. Where Parliament has delegated its legislative function to a Minister of the Crown without retaining any specific control over the exercise of that function by the Minister (such as a condition that an order made by a Minister should be laid before Parliament and be subject to annulment by Parliament) the Court has the right and duty to decide whether the Minister has acted within the limits of his deli gated power. " 12. Mr. Gouri Mitter submitted to me that Rules 301 to 304 may be capable of reconciliation with the provisions of section 462 of the Companies Act. But he agrees with Mr. Chaudhuri that section 643 of the Act does not give to the Supreme Court the power of framing these Rules. That being the case it is unnecessary to enter into problems of reconciliation. Mr. Mitter relies on the following observations in Odgers' Construction of Deeds and Statutes, 3rd Edition at page 303:- "rules must be read together with the relevant Act; they cannot repeal or contradict express provisions in the Act from which they derive their authority. "if the Act is plain, the Rules must be interpreted so as to reconcile with it or, if it cannot be reconciled, the Rule must give way to the plain terms of the Act. " Rules made by the judiciary under Statutory authority are subject to judicial examination in the same way and to the same extent as those made by the Executive or Administrative Departments of State: Craies on Statute Law, 5th Edition, page 293. To my mind Rules 301 to 304 contradict express provisions in the Companies Act, 1956 and as such, they are of no effect. 13. Before I conclude I intend to compare the relevant provisions in the English Companies Act, 1948 and the Rules made thereunder. Section 249 of the English Act is as follows:- " (1) Every liquidator of a company which is being wound up by the court in England shall at such times as may be prescribed but not less than twice in each year during his tenure of office, send to the Board of Trade, or as they direct, an account of his receipts and payments as liquidator. (2) The account shall be in a prescribed form, shall be made in duplicate, and shall be verified by a statutory declaration in the prescribed form. (2) The account shall be in a prescribed form, shall be made in duplicate, and shall be verified by a statutory declaration in the prescribed form. (3) The Board shall cause the account to be audited, and for the purpose of the audit the liquidator shall furnish the Board with such vouchers and information as the Board may require and the board may at any time require the production of and inspect any books or accounts kept by the liquidator. (4) When the account has been audited, one copy thereof shall be filed and kept by the Board, and the other copy shall be delivered to the court for filing and each copy shall be open to the inspection of any person on payment of the prescribed fee. (5) The liquidator shall cause the account when audited or a summary thereof to be printed, and shall send a printed copy of the account or summary by post to every creditor and contributory: provided that the Board may in any cause dispense with compliance with this sub-section. " 14. The provisions of sections 249 of the English Act and those of section 462 of the Companies Act, 1956 are practically the same except that here the liquidator is concerned not with the Board of Trade or any other similar authority but with the court having jurisdiction. I will now set out the relevant Rules framed in England relating to Accounts and Audit in a winding up by the Court:- "174. The Committee of Inspection shall not less than once every three months audit the Liquidator's Cash Book and certify therein under their hands the day on which the said book was audited. "175. (1) The Liquidator shall, at the expiration of six months from the date of the winding-up order, and at the expiration of every succeeding six months thereafter until his release, transmit to the Board of Trade a copy of the Cash Book for such period in duplicate, together with the necessary vouchers and copies of the certificates of audit by the Committee of Inspection. He shall always forward with the first accounts a summary of the Company's statement of affairs showing thereon the amounts realised, and explaining the cause of the non-realisation of such assets as may be unrealized. He shall always forward with the first accounts a summary of the Company's statement of affairs showing thereon the amounts realised, and explaining the cause of the non-realisation of such assets as may be unrealized. The Liquidator shall also at the end of every six months forward to the Board of Trade with his Accounts, a report upon the position of the liquidation of the company in such form as the Board of Trade may direct. (2) When the assets of the company have been fully realised and distributed, the Liquidator shall forthwith send in his accounts to the Board of Trade, although the six months may not have expired. (3) The accounts sent in by the Liquidator shall be verified by him by affidavit. 176. (1) Where the Liquidator carries on the business of the Company, he shall keep a distinct account of the trading and shall incorporate in the Cash Book the total Weekly amounts of the receipts and payments on such trading account. (2) The trading account shall from time to time and not less than once in every month, be verified by affidavit, and the Liquidator shall thereupon submit such account to the Committee of Inspection (if any), or such member thereof as may be appointed by the Committee for that purpose, who shall examine and certify the same. 177. When the Liquidator's accounts have been audited, the Board of Trade shall certify the fact upon the account, and thereupon the duplicate copy, bearing a like certificate, shall be filed with the Registrar, and that copy, together with a copy of the said account delivered to the Court for filing in accordance with section 249 of the Act, shall be open to the inspection of any person on payment of the same fee as is payable with respect to the inspection of the file of proceedings under Rule 19. 178. (1) The Liquidator shall prepare a summary of such accounts and shall, subject to any dispensation granted by the Board of trade under sub-section (5) of section 249 of the Act, send a printed copy of that summary by post to every creditor or contributory. (2) The costs of printing and posting such copy shall be a charge upon the assets of the Company. (2) The costs of printing and posting such copy shall be a charge upon the assets of the Company. " It is to be seen that in England no Rules have been framed relating to the procedure of Audit at the instance of the Board of Trade. In the English Act sub-section (3) of section 249 merely provides that the Board of Trade shall cause the account to be audited. In the Companies Act of 1956 the language is stronger. Sub-section (3) of section 462 lays down that the court shall cause the account to be audited in such manner as it thinks fit. As I have come to the conclusion that Rules 301 to 304 are of no effect so far as winding up by the court is concerned, I direct the Assistant Registrar (Company) to submit to me a report on the procedure to be adopted by this Court in causing the account of the liquidator to be audited within three weeks from date whereupon I propose to give administrative directions in the matter.