TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be granted to prosecute proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and whether such leave could be made conditional against execution of the recovery certificate against the company's assets without further leave.
Analysis: The company was under winding up and the official liquidator had been appointed. The bank's claim was stated to be due and there was no shown legal bar to pursuing the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The company court's function is to protect the assets of the company in liquidation, but it may also permit expeditious prosecution of proceedings in another forum where the statute provides such a remedy. Leave may be granted in the court's discretion, either conditionally or unconditionally, depending on the facts of the case.
Conclusion: Leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was granted to the bank to file and pursue the proposed petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. The leave was made conditional that any recovery certificate or decree obtained would not be executed against the company's assets without further specific leave of the court.
TaxTMI 
