Winding-up leave requirement: execution proceedings were not void for want of prior leave and could take effect once leave was granted.

Execution proceedings against a company in winding up were not treated as a nullity merely because prior leave of the winding-up court had not been obtained. Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was applied as a control mechanism to protect the winding-up court's supervision and equitable distribution among creditors, so the proceeding remained ineffective until leave was granted and could then take effect from that date. The existence of conflicting High Court views did not justify certification where the proposed appeal was found untenable on the merits, and the requirements under Article 133(1)(b) and (c) were not satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether execution proceedings against a company ordered to be wound up could be treated as incompetent merely because leave of the winding-up court had not been obtained before their institution, and whether the refusal to certify the case for appeal was justified.

Analysis: Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was intended to protect the winding-up court's control over the company's assets and to secure equitable administration among creditors. The absence of prior leave did not make the execution proceeding a nullity in the sense of requiring dismissal; at most, the proceeding remained ineffective until leave was obtained, and on grant of leave it could be treated as instituted from that date. The existence of conflicting High Court views did not compel certification when the Court found the proposed appeal untenable on the merits. The questions under Article 133(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India were therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The objection to the execution proceeding failed, and the refusal to grant a certificate for appeal was sustained; the appellant's challenge was rejected.

---