1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Court orders removal of seal from liquidated company's premises, petitioner to vacate, pay fees, and take possession.</h1> The court granted the petitioner's application under section 446 of the Companies Act, directing the Official Liquidator to remove the seal/lock from the ... Winding up - Suits stayed on winding up order Issues:1. Application under section 446 of the Companies Act for direction to remove seal/lock from premises.2. Dispute over possession of premises between petitioner and Official Liquidator.3. Agreement on terms for vacating premises and handing over possession.4. Direction to Official Liquidator to hand over vacant possession within one month.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an application filed under section 446 of the Companies Act, where the petitioner sought a direction for the removal of the seal/lock from premises previously under the tenancy of a Company in liquidation. The Official Liquidator acknowledged that the disputed premises were rented by the Company in liquidation, which no longer required them. It was noted that the Company's records and some articles were still present in the premises, leading to a discussion on the costs associated with transporting these items. The petitioner contended that the articles held no significant value and proposed terms for vacating the premises in the best interest of the Company in liquidation.The parties reached an agreement whereby the petitioner would relinquish any arrears of rent and pay Rs. 1500 for furniture and fixtures of the Company in liquidation, along with an additional Rs. 1500 for transportation of the Company's records to Jaipur. The Official Liquidator confirmed that the total value of the articles did not exceed Rs. 1500. Considering the proposed terms beneficial for the Company in liquidation, the court found it appropriate to grant the petitioner's request for vacating and taking possession of the premises.The judgment directed the Official Liquidator to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner within one month. Furthermore, the petitioner was instructed to submit in writing that no claims for rent arrears would be made and to deposit Rs. 3000 with the Official Liquidator. Of this amount, Rs. 1500 would be allocated for the asset value, and the remainder would cover transportation costs of the Company's records. Compliance with these conditions was mandated for the petitioner to obtain possession of the premises, thereby concluding the matter and disposing of the application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
