https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101324 A statutory sale and detention of vessels under section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 did not require prior leave of the company court under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, because the port authorities acted under a self-contained statutory power. An application seeking only interim restraint against that authorised sale was therefore misconceived. Allegations that the official liquidator acted illegally, arbitrarily or in collusion with secured creditors and the port authorities were rejected on the basis of the meeting minutes and surrounding circumstances. Withdrawal of the earlier challenge was found to have been taken on independent legal advice and in the company's interest, so the later attempts to revive the challenge failed and were treated as an abuse of process. en-us Mon, 23 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:33:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101324 A statutory sale and detention of vessels under section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 did not require prior leave of the company court under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, because the port authorities acted under a self-contained statutory power. An application seeking only interim restraint against that authorised sale was therefore misconceived. Allegations that the official liquidator acted illegally, arbitrarily or in collusion with secured creditors and the port authorities were rejected on the basis of the meeting minutes and surrounding circumstances. Withdrawal of the earlier challenge was found to have been taken on independent legal advice and in the company's interest, so the later attempts to revive the challenge failed and were treated as an abuse of process. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 23 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101324