https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110970 Section 446 of the Companies Act was treated as a safeguard bringing proceedings touching a company in liquidation under the Company Court's supervision to protect and realise assets. Criminal prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arising from dishonoured cheques issued for the company, was regarded as connected with the conduct of the ex-directors, so leave could be granted to continue proceedings against them. No such leave was justified against the official liquidator because no allegation was made against him. Leave was therefore granted only for prosecution of the ex-directors, and refused as against the liquidator. en-us Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:09:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110970 Section 446 of the Companies Act was treated as a safeguard bringing proceedings touching a company in liquidation under the Company Court's supervision to protect and realise assets. Criminal prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arising from dishonoured cheques issued for the company, was regarded as connected with the conduct of the ex-directors, so leave could be granted to continue proceedings against them. No such leave was justified against the official liquidator because no allegation was made against him. Leave was therefore granted only for prosecution of the ex-directors, and refused as against the liquidator. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110970