https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101595 The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the stay order on execution proceedings. The executing court was directed to proceed with the execution application, emphasizing that the decree-holder was entitled to seek ejectment of the company, now represented by the official liquidator, as the company had no interest in the premises post-eviction order. The judgment clarified the scope and application of section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 in cases involving winding up orders and execution proceedings, emphasizing the protection of company assets and the distinction between matters under the winding-up court's jurisdiction and those outside its purview. en-us Mon, 19 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:02:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101595 The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the stay order on execution proceedings. The executing court was directed to proceed with the execution application, emphasizing that the decree-holder was entitled to seek ejectment of the company, now represented by the official liquidator, as the company had no interest in the premises post-eviction order. The judgment clarified the scope and application of section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 in cases involving winding up orders and execution proceedings, emphasizing the protection of company assets and the distinction between matters under the winding-up court's jurisdiction and those outside its purview. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 19 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101595