Winding up leave requirement bars deposit-refund petitions before the tribunal when liquidation proceedings are already pending.

Petitions for refund of fixed deposits with agreed interest were found not maintainable before the NCLT because winding up proceedings against the company were already pending before the High Court and a provisional liquidator had been appointed. In that situation, continuation of proceedings against the company required leave of the winding up court under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and no such leave had been obtained. The Tribunal also relied on the High Court's no-coercive-action order and directed that the depositors pursue their claims in the pending winding up proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitions seeking refund of fixed deposits with interest under section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 were maintainable in view of the pending winding up proceedings and the absence of leave of the winding up court.

Analysis: The depositors had a claim for repayment with agreed interest, but a winding up petition against the company was already pending before the High Court and a provisional liquidator had been appointed. The Tribunal noted that, in such circumstances, section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 bars continuation of legal proceedings against the company without leave of the winding up court. Since no such leave had been obtained, the petitions could not be proceeded with before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also noted the subsisting order of the High Court directing that no coercive action be taken against the company and held that the depositors should pursue their claim in the winding up proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitions were not maintainable before the Tribunal and the depositors were relegated to approach the High Court in the pending winding up proceedings for refund of their deposits.

---