https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110794 An application for leave under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to continue a pending suit against a company in liquidation is interlocutory and regulates only the forum; it does not attract Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so limitation did not bar the application. While granting leave, the Company Court may impose terms, but not conditions inconsistent with law or the creditor's substantive rights. A direction requiring recovery first from guarantors, despite the joint and several liability of principal debtor and guarantors and the creditor's choice of remedy, was impermissible and was deleted. Leave to proceed with the suit was upheld. en-us Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110794 An application for leave under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to continue a pending suit against a company in liquidation is interlocutory and regulates only the forum; it does not attract Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so limitation did not bar the application. While granting leave, the Company Court may impose terms, but not conditions inconsistent with law or the creditor's substantive rights. A direction requiring recovery first from guarantors, despite the joint and several liability of principal debtor and guarantors and the creditor's choice of remedy, was impermissible and was deleted. Leave to proceed with the suit was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110794