https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103152 Leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 is not a condition precedent for instituting a suit against a company in liquidation, and it may be granted ex post facto. A suit filed without prior leave is not ineffective for limitation purposes merely because leave is obtained later; the statutory fiction operates only against the official liquidator and does not render a timely suit time-barred. An application for leave is not barred by limitation under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since no specific period is prescribed and extension may be available. The result is that the suit could continue and refusal of leave was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 09 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:53:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103152 Leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 is not a condition precedent for instituting a suit against a company in liquidation, and it may be granted ex post facto. A suit filed without prior leave is not ineffective for limitation purposes merely because leave is obtained later; the statutory fiction operates only against the official liquidator and does not render a timely suit time-barred. An application for leave is not barred by limitation under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since no specific period is prescribed and extension may be available. The result is that the suit could continue and refusal of leave was unsustainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 09 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103152