https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104060 Leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was considered in relation to a civil suit based on agreements made after commencement of winding up and in breach of a Supreme Court restraint order. The Court treated the transactions as void, noting that the shareholders had not been fully informed and that allowing the suit would expose the company in liquidation to avoidable litigation and cost. It also held that rescission and damages were unavailable because the agreements were unlawful, any alternative right had been affirmed after knowledge of the alleged fraud, and a damages claim could not create a fresh liability against the company after winding up. Leave to proceed was refused. en-us Wed, 30 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:57:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104060 Leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was considered in relation to a civil suit based on agreements made after commencement of winding up and in breach of a Supreme Court restraint order. The Court treated the transactions as void, noting that the shareholders had not been fully informed and that allowing the suit would expose the company in liquidation to avoidable litigation and cost. It also held that rescission and damages were unavailable because the agreements were unlawful, any alternative right had been affirmed after knowledge of the alleged fraud, and a damages claim could not create a fresh liability against the company after winding up. Leave to proceed was refused. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 30 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104060