TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Companies Act: Court Grants Leave for Suit Against Company & Guarantor Post Winding-Up Order</h1> <h3>Deutsche Bank Versus S.P. Kala Official Liquidator of Sea Transportation (P.) Ltd.</h3> Deutsche Bank Versus S.P. Kala Official Liquidator of Sea Transportation (P.) Ltd. - [1990] 67 Comp. Cas. 474 (Bom) Issues:Application under section 446 of the Companies Act, jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, interpretation of sections 125 and 132 of the Companies Act, authority of the company court to grant leave to file a suit against the company and a third party, restrictions on proceedings against the company post winding-up order.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an application under section 446 of the Companies Act, where the Deutsche Bank sought leave to file a suit against a company and a guarantor, following a winding-up order against the company. The official liquidator opposed the application, arguing that the suit should not be filed in the Bombay High Court as the cause of action had exclusively arisen in Goa. He contended that the company court had jurisdiction to deal with the suit based on sections 125 and 132 of the Companies Act. However, the applicant's counsel argued that the suit should be allowed to proceed in Bombay as it involved a third party and not just the company, citing relevant case laws to support this stance.The court examined the provisions of section 446 of the Companies Act, emphasizing that once a winding-up order is made or an official liquidator is appointed, no proceedings can continue against the company without the court's permission. The court clarified that the company court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit involving the company, without restrictions on the nature of the suit. It was highlighted that the court's discretion to grant leave is based on the satisfaction that there is a case to institute or continue a suit by or against the company, with no limitation on suits involving third parties. The court rejected the argument that the company court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit against a company and a third party, emphasizing the wide scope of the provision allowing for such suits.Ultimately, the court partly allowed the application, granting leave to the Deutsche Bank to file the proposed suit before the Bombay High Court. The judgment underscored that the company court had the authority to entertain suits involving both the company and third parties, without any inherent restrictions on its jurisdiction in such matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
