Beliatzky & Ca.
At H. M. Supreme Court on Thursday, his Honour Judge Grain granted an order for the winding up under the Companies Ordinances, Hongkong, and the China Order-in-Council of 1915, of Mar' nett, Beliatzky & Co.,'Ld., of 6 Foochow Road.
Mr. A. G. Mossop, the acting Crown Advocate, instructed by Mr. Sidney Barton, Registrar of Companies at Shanghai, said that the company was incorporated on November 15, 1921, as a China company limited by shares. The capital was Tls. 50,000, divided into 50,000 shares of Tls. 1 a@ach. The amount of capital paid up, or credited as being paid up, was Tls. 26,000. The position sought to acquire and take over the business now carried on by F. B. Marriott and P. A. Beliatzky and all the assets or liabilities of the proprietors of that business.
Since the resignation of one of the British directors, the company had failed to take steps to provide majority of directors who were British subjects. Therefore, the company could be wound up according to the Hongkong Ordinances and the China Order-in-Council of 1915.
In answer to a technical point raised by his Lordship, Counsel said that the rule in the Order-in-Council regarding the publication' of the; notice substituted the '"North-China Daily News" for the Hongkong "This is the first application of; its kind that has ever been made in this Court," counsel proceeded, "since the China Order-in-Council of 1915 came into operation. For that reiison, I think this is the time to bring to your Lordship's notice the sections under which we are proceeding. Sinze 1915, the Order given an extraordinary power to the Registrar of Companies, a power which is not given to Registrar at Home, namely, to make an application for a winding-up in addition to such persons as creditors or contributories."
Article 8 provided, said counsel, that the majority of directors should be British subjects. If at any time the proportion fell to below one-half, it should be the duty of the directors and shareholders, within 30 days, to take the necessary steps} for the appointment of such a number of persons who are British subjects as directors. As regards the effects of the company, - they} were proved in the petition and affidavits. The company had three directors, two British and one of Polish nationality. One British director had resigned. As far as could be ascertained, the remaining British director was not at present in Shanghai. Mr. Beliatzky was now the only director. The applica ation had nothing to do with the assets.
His Lordship—There has been a case recently before me in which the director, Mr. Beliatzky, said the company had no assets. -It was sued by the compradore. Mr. Beliatzky, who appeared in person, said he could not pay. Later on, he said he had some assets, which consisted of the office furniture and a safe.
Counsel said that Mr. K. Newman (who was formerly a director) and Mr. _Beliatzky were ready to give the Official Receiver every assistance.
His Lordship—lf Mr. Beliatzky proves hostile, we shall have no jurisdiction over him.
Mr. Mossop ephod that Mr. Beliatzky. was anxious to have this order made. The Registrar of Companies had Leen obliged to make certain disbursements. He should be entitled to taxed costs. They might never be paid.
His Lordship then made the order, with taxed costs to be paid out of the assets of the company. He intimated that it might be necessary to get leave fiom the secretary of State for Forei; Affairs to release some other funds.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.