https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107012 The Calcutta HC noted that a Company Court exercising winding-up jurisdiction under section 446(2) can grant effective relief concerning property connected with liquidation, including restoration of possession. It held that a transferee of only the residue of a lease cannot retain the premises after expiry where no fresh renewal lease was concluded, and the Official Liquidator's lack of actual possession does not defeat jurisdiction. The Court further found that the relief sought was not barred by limitation because it was not an attempt to set aside the auction sale, and the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 did not defeat the landlords' claim to possession. en-us Tue, 03 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:23:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107012 The Calcutta HC noted that a Company Court exercising winding-up jurisdiction under section 446(2) can grant effective relief concerning property connected with liquidation, including restoration of possession. It held that a transferee of only the residue of a lease cannot retain the premises after expiry where no fresh renewal lease was concluded, and the Official Liquidator's lack of actual possession does not defeat jurisdiction. The Court further found that the relief sought was not barred by limitation because it was not an attempt to set aside the auction sale, and the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 did not defeat the landlords' claim to possession. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 03 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107012