TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether, after leave has been obtained to proceed with a suit against a company in winding up, a separate leave of the winding-up court is required for an application to amend the plaint, and whether additional grounds of ejectment amount to a fresh cause of action requiring such leave.
Analysis: Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, requires leave for commencement or continuance of a suit or legal proceeding against a company in winding up, but the expression does not extend to every interlocutory step taken in the progress of an already permitted suit. Once leave to sue has been granted, applications incidental to the conduct of that suit, including amendment of pleadings, do not require fresh leave; otherwise the administration of the suit would become impractical and lead to absurd results. On the merits of the amendment, the grounds of ejectment under the Bombay Rent Act are not themselves the cause of action in a landlord's suit for possession; the cause of action is the termination of tenancy, while statutory grounds only remove the tenant's protection against eviction. Adding further grounds for ejectment therefore does not alter the nature of the suit or create a new cause of action.
Conclusion: Fresh leave of the winding-up court was not necessary for the amendment application, and the trial court erred in refusing amendment on that ground. The amendment to add further grounds of ejectment was competent.
Ratio Decidendi: Where leave to commence or continue a suit against a company in winding up has already been granted, interlocutory applications in the course of that suit, including amendments of pleadings, do not require fresh leave under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and additional statutory grounds of ejectment do not constitute a new cause of action in a landlord's eviction suit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
