Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 a winding-up petition under section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, based on a foreign decree, is a proceeding for execution of a decree within the meaning of section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The Code of Civil Procedure distinguishes between recognition of a foreign judgment and its direct execution. Section 44A permits execution only of decrees of superior courts of reciprocating territories, whereas a foreign judgment may otherwise found a suit in India subject to the limitations in section 13. The winding-up provisions in sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 create a distinct statutory remedy. A petition for winding up is not confined to a creditor alone, is not an execution mechanism, and involves judicial discretion and consideration of wider factors beyond mere recovery of a debt. The existence of a foreign decree may support the assertion of indebtedness, but the proceeding itself is not one for execution under section 44A.
Conclusion: The objection that the winding-up petition was barred for want of compliance with section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was rejected, and the proceeding under section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held not to be a proceeding for execution of a decree.