https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101834 The company court retained jurisdiction over claims arising in winding up, and the official liquidator could institute proceedings without separate sanction. Limitation for a claim under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was computed from the winding-up order, with the period from commencement of winding up to that order, plus one year thereafter, excluded under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963; the claim was therefore within time. On the merits, however, payments towards leave encashment and supervision charges were not treated as recoverable because similar payments had been made in the company's internal practice and no fraud or adverse conduct was shown; interest also did not survive once recovery was refused. en-us Mon, 18 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:47:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101834 The company court retained jurisdiction over claims arising in winding up, and the official liquidator could institute proceedings without separate sanction. Limitation for a claim under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was computed from the winding-up order, with the period from commencement of winding up to that order, plus one year thereafter, excluded under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963; the claim was therefore within time. On the merits, however, payments towards leave encashment and supervision charges were not treated as recoverable because similar payments had been made in the company's internal practice and no fraud or adverse conduct was shown; interest also did not survive once recovery was refused. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 18 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101834