Winding-up order and company dissolution: section 338 did not revive the dissolved company or restore capacity to sue.

A winding-up order under section 338 of the Companies Act, 1929 was considered for its effect on a company already dissolved by foreign law. The key question was whether the later order revived the dissolved company so that a plaintiff existed to maintain the action and support the application. The analysis stated that the earlier dissolution left the action without a plaintiff and therefore incapable of proceeding. Section 338 was treated as lacking language that would re-animate the company or displace the foreign dissolution, so the company was not revived and the application could not be entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the winding-up order under section 338 of the Companies Act, 1929 revived the dissolved company so as to restore a plaintiff capable of maintaining the action and supporting the present application.

Analysis: The application turned on whether the later winding-up order had the effect of re-animating the company or avoiding the dissolution already brought about by foreign law. The Court held that once the earlier order had been made, the action had become dead because there was no plaintiff to maintain it. Section 338 was held not to contain language that revived the plaintiff or displaced the dissolution.

Conclusion: The company was not revived, the action remained dead, and the application could not be entertained.

---