https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214967 In a winding-up proceeding, the company court may summarily decide disputes over company assets under section 446(2) after hearing the affected party, and the procedure adopted for eviction was treated as lawful. The court also applied section 536(2) to hold that a renewal of lease executed after presentation of the winding-up petition amounted to an impermissible disposition after commencement of winding up, particularly where the company had previously undertaken not to alienate assets without approval. The claim of statutory monthly tenancy was rejected, and the occupant was found to have no right to remain in possession. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Feb 2013 12:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214967 In a winding-up proceeding, the company court may summarily decide disputes over company assets under section 446(2) after hearing the affected party, and the procedure adopted for eviction was treated as lawful. The court also applied section 536(2) to hold that a renewal of lease executed after presentation of the winding-up petition amounted to an impermissible disposition after commencement of winding up, particularly where the company had previously undertaken not to alienate assets without approval. The claim of statutory monthly tenancy was rejected, and the occupant was found to have no right to remain in possession. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214967