https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99547 Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed as conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the company court to entertain a money claim by the official liquidator by petition under clause (b), and not only by suit under clause (a). The existence of clause (a) did not exclude clause (b), and the amendment was read as allowing a summary claim procedure in winding up to avoid delay and expense. On that basis, the petition was maintainable under section 446(2)(b), and the court fee payable was the fixed fee applicable to an application under the Court-fees Act, not ad valorem fee as for a money suit. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:40:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99547 Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed as conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the company court to entertain a money claim by the official liquidator by petition under clause (b), and not only by suit under clause (a). The existence of clause (a) did not exclude clause (b), and the amendment was read as allowing a summary claim procedure in winding up to avoid delay and expense. On that basis, the petition was maintainable under section 446(2)(b), and the court fee payable was the fixed fee applicable to an application under the Court-fees Act, not ad valorem fee as for a money suit. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 02 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99547