https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96882 A suit against a company in liquidation filed without prior leave under section 171 was held not to be a nullity and should ordinarily be stayed rather than dismissed, because the borrowed statutory language was construed consistently with the settled English practice. Where leave is later granted, the proceedings remain valid, and the later grant does not defeat the suit on limitation grounds merely because it was obtained after expiry of time. The operative effect is that prior leave is required for continuation, but subsequent leave can cure the defect and preserve the action for limitation purposes. en-us Fri, 20 Mar 1942 00:00:00 +0630 Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:00:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96882 A suit against a company in liquidation filed without prior leave under section 171 was held not to be a nullity and should ordinarily be stayed rather than dismissed, because the borrowed statutory language was construed consistently with the settled English practice. Where leave is later granted, the proceedings remain valid, and the later grant does not defeat the suit on limitation grounds merely because it was obtained after expiry of time. The operative effect is that prior leave is required for continuation, but subsequent leave can cure the defect and preserve the action for limitation purposes. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 20 Mar 1942 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96882