https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100964 SC held that jurisdiction under section 446(2) lies with the court winding up the company and must be construed to advance Part VII's object of a cheap, summary remedy. A winding-up order kept in abeyance remained subsisting but inoperative and could be revived by default under the sanctioned scheme. The HC erred in refusing to direct the provisional liquidator to prefer claim petitions; amounts realized must be handed over to the company and applied to implement the scheme under court supervision. en-us Thu, 16 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100964 SC held that jurisdiction under section 446(2) lies with the court winding up the company and must be construed to advance Part VII's object of a cheap, summary remedy. A winding-up order kept in abeyance remained subsisting but inoperative and could be revived by default under the sanctioned scheme. The HC erred in refusing to direct the provisional liquidator to prefer claim petitions; amounts realized must be handed over to the company and applied to implement the scheme under court supervision. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 16 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100964