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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether leave should be granted under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 to continue proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the bank's claim against a company under winding up.
Analysis: The claim was already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal when the winding-up order was made. The Official Liquidator did not dispute the grant of permission, but sought liberty to contest the claim and protection of the company's estate. In these circumstances, and considering that the liquidation process was likely to take time, there was no sufficient ground to refuse leave to proceed with the recovery proceedings.
Conclusion: Leave to continue the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal was granted, with liberty to the Official Liquidator to contest the claim and subject to conditions regarding expenses and prior permission before execution.
Final Conclusion: The bank was permitted to pursue its recovery claim notwithstanding the winding-up proceedings, while preserving the Liquidator's right to contest and safeguarding the company's estate.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a recovery claim is already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the company is under liquidation, leave under section 446 may be granted if no prejudice is shown, subject to safeguards protecting the liquidation estate.