https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98416 Post-commencement dispositions of company property are void unless the company court validates them under section 536(2), and validation is confined to bona fide transactions made in the ordinary course of the company's current trade. On the facts, the payments were not shown to fall within that category, so they were not validated and the claimed sum was not treated as company property. The application for refund was not barred by limitation because section 536(2) contains no express limitation period and Article 137 did not apply in the winding-up context. The company court was held to have jurisdiction, with rule 9 preserving inherent powers to order repayment in appropriate liquidation cases. en-us Tue, 18 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:11:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98416 Post-commencement dispositions of company property are void unless the company court validates them under section 536(2), and validation is confined to bona fide transactions made in the ordinary course of the company's current trade. On the facts, the payments were not shown to fall within that category, so they were not validated and the claimed sum was not treated as company property. The application for refund was not barred by limitation because section 536(2) contains no express limitation period and Article 137 did not apply in the winding-up context. The company court was held to have jurisdiction, with rule 9 preserving inherent powers to order repayment in appropriate liquidation cases. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 18 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98416