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: (i) whether execution proceedings taken after commencement of winding up, without leave of the company court, were hit by the winding-up restrictions and void; (ii) whether the Official Liquidator's application for return of the realised amount was barred by limitation.
Issue (i): whether execution proceedings taken after commencement of winding up, without leave of the company court, were hit by the winding-up restrictions and void.
Analysis: The decrees relied on by the decree holders were passed before the winding-up order, but the execution proceedings were initiated after the company petition had already been presented. The relevant principle is that, for winding-up purposes, commencement dates back to presentation of the petition, and execution against the company's estate after such commencement requires leave of the court. The specific provision governing execution is distinct from the general expression concerning other legal proceedings, and a post-commencement execution without leave falls within the statutory prohibition.
Conclusion: The execution proceedings were void for want of leave of the company court.
Issue (ii): whether the Official Liquidator's application for return of the realised amount was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The Court applied the principle that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 extends to applications under any enactment made to a court. The view that the liquidator's application was outside limitation because no provision applied was rejected. Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 was considered, but it was held not to displace the applicability of the Limitation Act; rather, it only affects computation where limitation otherwise applies. Since the application was made long after the cause of action arose, it was beyond the prescribed period.
Conclusion: The application was barred by limitation.
Final Conclusion: The amounts realised in execution could not be retained by the decree holders, but the Official Liquidator's request for their return failed because the application was time-barred, resulting in dismissal of the application.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications made to a court under any enactment, including applications by an Official Liquidator in winding-up proceedings, and execution against a company's estate after commencement of winding up without leave of the company court is void.
TaxTMI 
