https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98632 The court allowed the appeal against the refusal of leave to prosecute and continue a suit against a company in liquidation under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant, a merchant firm, sought to proceed with a suit against the company and its managing director for a personal decree. The court emphasized the equal treatment of unsecured creditors in liquidation proceedings and the discretionary nature of granting leave to continue proceedings against a company in liquidation. Ultimately, the court found the refusal of leave to be inconsistent with established principles and granted leave for the appellant to proceed with the suit, with certain conditions imposed. en-us Thu, 10 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:25:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98632 The court allowed the appeal against the refusal of leave to prosecute and continue a suit against a company in liquidation under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant, a merchant firm, sought to proceed with a suit against the company and its managing director for a personal decree. The court emphasized the equal treatment of unsecured creditors in liquidation proceedings and the discretionary nature of granting leave to continue proceedings against a company in liquidation. Ultimately, the court found the refusal of leave to be inconsistent with established principles and granted leave for the appellant to proceed with the suit, with certain conditions imposed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 10 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98632