Winding-up court leave is required for execution proceedings against a company in liquidation under Section 171.

Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act was construed broadly so that "proceeding" includes execution proceedings against a company in liquidation. After a winding-up order and appointment of a provisional liquidator, execution cannot continue as of right; leave of the winding-up court is required to ensure the court controls further steps against the company and determines whether execution should proceed or be adjusted through the liquidator. The company was treated as a substantive party, not a mere pro forma defendant. The lower courts' contrary view was incorrect.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after a winding-up order has been made and a provisional liquidator appointed, execution proceedings against the company can be continued without the sanction of the winding-up court under Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act.

Analysis: The word "proceeding" in Section 171 was construed broadly. It was held that the expression is not confined to original proceedings resembling a suit, but extends to execution proceedings as well. The purpose of the section is to enable the winding-up court to control further proceedings against the company and decide whether execution should continue or the matter should be adjusted through the liquidator. The company, being a party against whom relief had been granted, was not a mere pro forma defendant.

Conclusion: Sanction of the winding-up court was necessary to continue the execution proceedings, and the contrary view of the lower courts was incorrect.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, the term "proceeding" includes execution proceedings against a company in liquidation, so continuation of such proceedings requires leave of the winding-up court.

---