Winding-up order does not revive a company dissolved under foreign law, so an abated action cannot be restored.
Whether a winding-up order under Section 338 of the Companies Act, 1929 revives a company dissolved under foreign law was the central issue; the court applied the principle that a foreign dissolution, once effective, cannot be nullified or re-animated by a subsequent domestic winding-up order to restore a previously abated suit. The court found the prior proceeding had abated for want of a plaintiff, the winding-up order did not revive corporate existence for the purpose of continuing the action, and accordingly there was no live plaintiff and the motion was dismissed.
Issues: Whether a winding-up order made under Section 338 of the Companies Act, 1929 revives a company dissolved under foreign law so as to permit continuation of an action which had abated for want of a plaintiff.
Analysis: The Court examined the effect of the earlier order of Eve, J., which had left no plaintiff able to maintain the action, and considered the legal consequences of a subsequent winding-up order under Section 338 of the Companies Act, 1929. The Court found that the action had become abated and that the statutory provision relied upon did not re-animate or avoid the dissolution effected by the foreign law; consequently there was no live plaintiff in existence to maintain the suit and no action in which the present application could be made.
Conclusion: The Court concluded that the winding-up order under Section 338 of the Companies Act, 1929 does not revive a company dissolved by foreign law for the purpose of restoring a dead action, and the motion is dismissed (against the plaintiff).
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
