1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Magistrate Can Proceed Against Liquidator Without High Court Permission</h1> The High Court of Calcutta held that the Magistrate did not require prior permission from the High Court under s. 171 of the Indian Companies Act to ... Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order Issues: Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in proceedings under s. 145, Criminal Procedure Code against the Official Liquidator of a company without prior permission of the High Court under s. 171 of the Indian Companies Act.In this judgment, the High Court of Calcutta addressed the challenge against the Magistrate's orders in proceedings under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code involving the Official Liquidator of a company. The petitioner, the Official Liquidator of a company in liquidation, was involved in a dispute over possession of a plot leased to a party shortly before the winding-up order. The Court noted that possession was found to be with the lessee, and the objection that the lessee was out of possession for more than 2 months before the proceedings were initiated was not raised earlier. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate, under s. 145, is mandated to address disputes likely to cause a breach of peace promptly. The Court rejected the argument that the Magistrate needed prior permission from the High Court under s. 171 of the Indian Companies Act to proceed against the liquidator, highlighting that the provision aims to prevent wasteful litigation during winding-up but does not restrict Magistrates from addressing possession disputes promptly to prevent breaches of peace. The Court clarified that the liquidator, though representing the company, could be considered a separate entity for the purpose of possession disputes. The Court concluded that the objection based on s. 171 of the Companies Act was not applicable in this case, and the proceedings against the liquidator were not considered as against the company. The Court emphasized that the liquidator's involvement in initiating police and Magisterial proceedings did not constitute proceedings against the company. Therefore, the Court discharged the Rule, and the judgment was agreed upon by both judges, Pearson and Patterson.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
