https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101726 The court affirmed the maintainability of the application under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, allowing claims in the winding-up process. It held the appellant as a trespasser due to failure to prove title and interest in the disputed property. The court rejected the appellant's arguments on eviction, stating that proceedings under section 446 constitute due process. The appeal was dismissed, costs awarded to respondents, and any interim order vacated. en-us Wed, 09 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:03:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101726 The court affirmed the maintainability of the application under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, allowing claims in the winding-up process. It held the appellant as a trespasser due to failure to prove title and interest in the disputed property. The court rejected the appellant's arguments on eviction, stating that proceedings under section 446 constitute due process. The appeal was dismissed, costs awarded to respondents, and any interim order vacated. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 09 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101726