https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100032 Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as a special provision conferring wide jurisdiction on the winding-up court to entertain and dispose of proceedings by or against the company, including a complaint filed by the official liquidator for defaults committed in the course of winding up. Section 2(11) was read as distinguishing company matters from offences against the Act, while section 10 governed ordinary company jurisdiction. Section 454(5A) was regarded as a targeted provision for prompt punishment of statement-of-affairs defaults, but not as excluding the broader jurisdiction under section 446(2). The High Court's inherent powers were also noted as available in suitable cases to secure the ends of justice. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:19:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100032 Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as a special provision conferring wide jurisdiction on the winding-up court to entertain and dispose of proceedings by or against the company, including a complaint filed by the official liquidator for defaults committed in the course of winding up. Section 2(11) was read as distinguishing company matters from offences against the Act, while section 10 governed ordinary company jurisdiction. Section 454(5A) was regarded as a targeted provision for prompt punishment of statement-of-affairs defaults, but not as excluding the broader jurisdiction under section 446(2). The High Court's inherent powers were also noted as available in suitable cases to secure the ends of justice. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 25 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100032