https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103481 A creditor's recovery suit against a company in liquidation remains a money suit even when brought in the company court under section 446(2), so the ordinary requirement of ad valorem court fee is not displaced. The official liquidator's statutory claim is distinct from a private creditor's recovery action, and a petition under the Companies Act cannot be treated as attracting only a fixed fee. The text also states that leave under section 446(1) is required only for proceedings against the company, not against guarantors or other jointly or severally liable persons; where the suit is maintainable against the company, such defendants may be joined under Order 1 Rule 6 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. en-us Tue, 24 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:22:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103481 A creditor's recovery suit against a company in liquidation remains a money suit even when brought in the company court under section 446(2), so the ordinary requirement of ad valorem court fee is not displaced. The official liquidator's statutory claim is distinct from a private creditor's recovery action, and a petition under the Companies Act cannot be treated as attracting only a fixed fee. The text also states that leave under section 446(1) is required only for proceedings against the company, not against guarantors or other jointly or severally liable persons; where the suit is maintainable against the company, such defendants may be joined under Order 1 Rule 6 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 24 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103481