Habeas corpus challenge to arrest safeguards remains maintainable, but substantial compliance with reasons-to-believe requirement defeats the petition...
The Company Court's jurisdiction was treated as surviving after a winding-up order, because post-winding-up arrangements that displaced the Official Liquidator's control could still be examined and, if necessary, undone under the court's inherent powers and the Companies Act, 1956. The challenge based on delay was not held to be fatal at this stage, as the alleged fraud and continuing acts were treated prima facie as giving rise to a continuing cause of action, leaving limitation for final determination. Ad interim stay was refused on balance of convenience, absence of a meaningful change in circumstances, and judicial propriety.
The Company Court's jurisdiction was treated as surviving after a winding-up order, because post-winding-up arrangements that displaced the Official Liquidator's control could still be examined and, if necessary, undone under the court's inherent powers and the Companies Act, 1956. The challenge based on delay was not held to be fatal at this stage, as the alleged fraud and continuing acts were treated prima facie as giving rise to a continuing cause of action, leaving limitation for final determination. Ad interim stay was refused on balance of convenience, absence of a meaningful change in circumstances, and judicial propriety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
