Leave of winding-up court not needed for defendant's appeal or revision where company itself started the proceedings.

Section 171 of the Companies Act, 1913 bars proceedings against a company in liquidation without leave of the winding-up court, but that restriction does not extend to appeals or revisions filed by the opposite party in litigation originally begun by the company. Where the company itself instituted the suit as plaintiff and decree-holder, the defendant's appellate or revisional challenge is treated as a continuation of the same proceedings and does not require leave. The document also notes that a revision against a finding on limitation was not competent, and that the appellate court had properly exercised discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 in extending time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after a company has gone into liquidation, leave of the winding-up court is necessary for appeals or revisions brought by unsuccessful defendants in proceedings originally commenced by the company. (ii) Whether the revision petition filed by the auction-purchaser against the finding on limitation was competent.

Issue (i): Whether, after a company has gone into liquidation, leave of the winding-up court is necessary for appeals or revisions brought by unsuccessful defendants in proceedings originally commenced by the company.

Analysis: Section 171 of the Companies Act, 1913 bars the commencement or prosecution of proceedings against a company without leave of the winding-up court. The bar is confined to proceedings against the company and does not extend to appellate or revisional proceedings instituted by the opposite party in litigation originally commenced by the company. Where the company itself set the proceedings in motion as plaintiff and decree-holder, an appeal or revision by the unsuccessful defendant is only a continuation of those proceedings. The principle is reinforced by the view that a company cannot both initiate proceedings and then insist that the other side cannot pursue the ordinary appellate remedies without leave.

Conclusion: No leave of the winding-up court was required for the appeals or revisions filed by the unsuccessful defendants, and the preliminary objection was rightly overruled.

Issue (ii): Whether the revision petition filed by the auction-purchaser against the finding on limitation was competent.

Analysis: The challenge was directed only against the appellate court's finding that the connected appeal was within time. The court held that no revision lay against that finding, and it also agreed that the appellate court had properly exercised its discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 in granting the extension of time.

Conclusion: The revision petition of the auction-purchaser was not competent and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The court upheld the maintainability of the judgment-debtors' appellate and revisional proceedings without leave of the liquidating court, while rejecting the auction-purchaser's revision challenge on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company itself institutes the original proceedings, subsequent appeals or revisions by the opposite party are a continuation of those proceedings and do not require leave of the winding-up court under the statutory bar applicable to proceedings against the company.

---