https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105443 Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 bars commencement or continuation of arbitration against a company in winding up without leave of the court, and that bar extends to arbitration proceedings. Leave was properly refused because the arbitration was initiated after the winding-up order, without leave, at a preliminary stage, and the unsecured creditor had an adequate statutory remedy to prove its claim before the Official Liquidator under the liquidation scheme. Proceedings begun in breach of the statutory bar are without authority of law and cannot be continued; the creditor must pursue its claim in liquidation. en-us Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:46:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105443 Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 bars commencement or continuation of arbitration against a company in winding up without leave of the court, and that bar extends to arbitration proceedings. Leave was properly refused because the arbitration was initiated after the winding-up order, without leave, at a preliminary stage, and the unsecured creditor had an adequate statutory remedy to prove its claim before the Official Liquidator under the liquidation scheme. Proceedings begun in breach of the statutory bar are without authority of law and cannot be continued; the creditor must pursue its claim in liquidation. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105443