https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103749 The winding-up court retained jurisdiction under section 446 of the Companies Act over proceedings concerning leased premises in liquidation, even though the premises were governed by rent-control legislation; applying harmonious construction, the special company-law jurisdiction was not excluded by the general rent-law forum provision, so the maintainability objection failed. The court also stated that the Official Liquidator could not transfer or alienate the leased property in breach of the Rent Act's restrictions on assignment or subletting; those statutory limits continued to operate after winding up, and any transfer had to fall within the narrow exception for a transfer of the business as a going concern. Standalone transfer of the leasehold interest was impermissible. en-us Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:26:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103749 The winding-up court retained jurisdiction under section 446 of the Companies Act over proceedings concerning leased premises in liquidation, even though the premises were governed by rent-control legislation; applying harmonious construction, the special company-law jurisdiction was not excluded by the general rent-law forum provision, so the maintainability objection failed. The court also stated that the Official Liquidator could not transfer or alienate the leased property in breach of the Rent Act's restrictions on assignment or subletting; those statutory limits continued to operate after winding up, and any transfer had to fall within the narrow exception for a transfer of the business as a going concern. Standalone transfer of the leasehold interest was impermissible. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103749