Relief undertaking notification does not block interim asset protection orders preserving property pending winding up adjudication.

A declaration of a company as a relief undertaking under the Bombay Relief Undertakings Act, 1958 suspends enforcement of accrued rights and stays proceedings during the notification, but it does not bar every interim order. The Court may still grant a protective restraint on disposal of assets where the order is directed only to preserving the subject matter and preventing dissipation pending adjudication of a winding up petition. Such an order is not enforcement of the debt itself. Earlier authorities on relief undertakings were distinguished because they concerned execution and similar proceedings, not ancillary protection of property. If asset disposal is genuinely required for business reasons, leave of the Court may be sought.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declaration of the respondent as a relief undertaking under the Bombay Relief Undertakings Act, 1958 barred the Court from granting interim protective relief restraining disposal of the respondent's assets pending adjudication of the winding up petition.

Analysis: Sections 3 and 4 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings Act, 1958 suspend the enforcement of accrued rights and stay proceedings during the currency of the notification, but they do not create a blanket prohibition against all interim orders. The protective order sought was not an enforcement of the applicant's debt; it was only intended to preserve the subject matter and prevent dissipation of assets so that effective final relief would remain available if the petition succeeded. The earlier authorities on relief undertakings were distinguished as dealing with execution and other proceedings, not with an ancillary restraint necessary to protect the property pending adjudication. If a genuine business necessity required disposal of assets, the respondent could seek leave of the Court.

Conclusion: The declaration of relief undertaking did not bar interim restraint on disposal of assets, and the protective order was justified.

Final Conclusion: Interim protection over the company's assets was maintained notwithstanding the relief undertaking notification, while the petition itself remained pending for future hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory suspension of proceedings under the relief undertakings law does not prevent the Court from passing interim orders that merely preserve assets and protect the efficacy of final relief.

---