<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (11) TMI 374 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106251</link>
    <description>Leave to continue a pending suit against a company in liquidation may be granted under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, because proceedings cannot continue without the company court&#039;s permission; the court may also impose conditions to protect the liquidation estate, and here leave was allowed subject to costs being deposited with the official liquidator and further orders before execution. Control over the company&#039;s mortgaged and hypothecated assets remained with the winding up court and the official liquidator under sections 453 and 456, so no order was made to continue the receiver, and that aspect was left to be worked out in the liquidation proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:24:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 374 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106251</link>
      <description>Leave to continue a pending suit against a company in liquidation may be granted under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, because proceedings cannot continue without the company court&#039;s permission; the court may also impose conditions to protect the liquidation estate, and here leave was allowed subject to costs being deposited with the official liquidator and further orders before execution. Control over the company&#039;s mortgaged and hypothecated assets remained with the winding up court and the official liquidator under sections 453 and 456, so no order was made to continue the receiver, and that aspect was left to be worked out in the liquidation proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>