https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101385 Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 does not justify staying a recovery suit against non-company defendants merely because the goods were allegedly supplied to a company under liquidation. Liability of the defendants was a matter for trial, and the threshold request for stay could not be sustained on that basis; if they were ultimately found not liable, the suit could still fail on merits. The liquidation leave requirement applies only to proceedings against the company or proceedings otherwise requiring leave in the context of liquidation, not to a suit against third parties linked to the transaction. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:54:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101385 Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 does not justify staying a recovery suit against non-company defendants merely because the goods were allegedly supplied to a company under liquidation. Liability of the defendants was a matter for trial, and the threshold request for stay could not be sustained on that basis; if they were ultimately found not liable, the suit could still fail on merits. The liquidation leave requirement applies only to proceedings against the company or proceedings otherwise requiring leave in the context of liquidation, not to a suit against third parties linked to the transaction. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 24 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101385