https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106687 Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 enlarges the Company Court's jurisdiction to matters relating to winding up, but it is intended to facilitate an effective summary liquidation process. A guarantor's request to have his independent liability to a creditor determined, including objections based on non-registration of charge, loss of security, and post-winding-up interest, was treated as outside the incidental matters covered by section 446(2)(d). The company court was not required to adjudicate the guarantor's liability for the purposes of winding up, and such defences could be raised in appropriate proceedings, including quia timet relief where available. The requested stay and adjudication against the guarantor was therefore not maintainable. en-us Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:33:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106687 Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 enlarges the Company Court's jurisdiction to matters relating to winding up, but it is intended to facilitate an effective summary liquidation process. A guarantor's request to have his independent liability to a creditor determined, including objections based on non-registration of charge, loss of security, and post-winding-up interest, was treated as outside the incidental matters covered by section 446(2)(d). The company court was not required to adjudicate the guarantor's liability for the purposes of winding up, and such defences could be raised in appropriate proceedings, including quia timet relief where available. The requested stay and adjudication against the guarantor was therefore not maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106687