Leave of Company Court for writ against company in liquidation was prima facie unnecessary where winding-up order was stayed.

Where a winding-up order has been stayed and no Official Liquidator has been appointed, leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 is prima facie not required to proceed against the company. In the matter described, permission was nevertheless sought because the writ court had directed the applicant to obtain leave from the Company Court, and the Company Court granted permission to prosecute the writ petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave of the Company Court was required and, if so, whether permission should be granted to prosecute the writ petition against the company in liquidation.

Analysis: The winding-up order had been stayed and the Official Liquidator had not been appointed. In that situation, the Court found that leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was prima facie not necessary, though permission was sought because the writ court had directed the applicant to obtain leave from the Company Court.

Conclusion: Permission to prosecute the writ petition was granted.

---