https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111212 A proceeding against a company in winding up is not non est merely because prior leave was absent; where leave under section 446(1) is later granted, the proceeding is treated as instituted on the date of leave for limitation purposes. A claim against a State based on an alleged executive arrangement is enforceable only if it satisfies the constitutionally prescribed form for State contracts under section 122 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. An informal agreement, assurance or guarantee that is neither pleaded nor proved in the required form cannot sustain liability, and promissory estoppel cannot override that constitutional requirement. en-us Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111212 A proceeding against a company in winding up is not non est merely because prior leave was absent; where leave under section 446(1) is later granted, the proceeding is treated as instituted on the date of leave for limitation purposes. A claim against a State based on an alleged executive arrangement is enforceable only if it satisfies the constitutionally prescribed form for State contracts under section 122 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. An informal agreement, assurance or guarantee that is neither pleaded nor proved in the required form cannot sustain liability, and promissory estoppel cannot override that constitutional requirement. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111212