TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, after leave had been obtained under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 to prosecute the suit, the decree-holder was required to obtain fresh leave under section 537 of the Companies Act, 1956 before executing the decree against company assets in liquidation. (ii) Whether a creditor of the company had locus standi to be heard directly in matters concerning administration of the assets of the company in liquidation, absent a committee of inspection.
Issue (i): Whether, after leave had been obtained under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 to prosecute the suit, the decree-holder was required to obtain fresh leave under section 537 of the Companies Act, 1956 before executing the decree against company assets in liquidation.
Analysis: Leave under section 446 to continue or prosecute a suit against a company in winding-up carries with it the control of the court over the proceedings, and execution is a continuation of the suit. Section 537 is directed to attachments, distress or execution in respect of antecedent transactions and does not require a second leave where the suit itself had already been permitted to proceed. The decree was obtained after leave under section 446, and the execution was therefore not void for want of further leave under section 537.
Conclusion: Fresh leave under section 537 was not required, and the execution was valid.
Issue (ii): Whether a creditor of the company had locus standi to be heard directly in matters concerning administration of the assets of the company in liquidation, absent a committee of inspection.
Analysis: The administration of assets in liquidation is conducted through the liquidator, and the body of creditors acts with the liquidator through a committee of inspection. In the absence of such a committee and without a proper application for its appointment, an individual creditor had no direct right of audience in the matter. The attempt to treat an oral request as a summons for appointment of a committee was not accepted.
Conclusion: The creditor had no direct locus standi to intervene, and the request was not entertained.
Final Conclusion: The decree-holder's execution was upheld as lawful, the possession obtained in execution was not disturbed, and the report was accepted with directions for payment of Rs. 60,000 and the stated undertaking.
Ratio Decidendi: Where leave has been granted under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 to prosecute a suit against a company in liquidation, no further leave under section 537 is necessary for execution of the decree obtained in that suit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
