https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111722 Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 confers wide winding-up jurisdiction, but it does not authorise the Company Court to declare void a decree passed by a competent court where the relief is, in substance, sought against a third party and the company's rights in the premises are not established as liquidation assets. Allegations of collusion or fraud did not enlarge that jurisdiction on the facts stated. The proper forum for disputes concerning public premises remained distinct from the Company Court. The appeal was allowed and the Single Judge's order was set aside. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:26:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111722 Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 confers wide winding-up jurisdiction, but it does not authorise the Company Court to declare void a decree passed by a competent court where the relief is, in substance, sought against a third party and the company's rights in the premises are not established as liquidation assets. Allegations of collusion or fraud did not enlarge that jurisdiction on the facts stated. The proper forum for disputes concerning public premises remained distinct from the Company Court. The appeal was allowed and the Single Judge's order was set aside. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111722