https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234154 An accrued liability for monthly rentals or deposits arising from actual use of a company's industrial infrastructure remained enforceable against the company in liquidation, and the later purchase of the unit did not extinguish the earlier liability. The limitation objection based on Sections 446(2)(b) and 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 did not defeat the claim because relief was traceable to Section 468, which permits the Court after a winding-up order to require a person in control of the company's money or property to account for it. A creditor's direct application was incompetent after appointment of the Provisional Liquidator; the Official Liquidator was the proper party to pursue recovery. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 May 2013 17:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234154 An accrued liability for monthly rentals or deposits arising from actual use of a company's industrial infrastructure remained enforceable against the company in liquidation, and the later purchase of the unit did not extinguish the earlier liability. The limitation objection based on Sections 446(2)(b) and 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 did not defeat the claim because relief was traceable to Section 468, which permits the Court after a winding-up order to require a person in control of the company's money or property to account for it. A creditor's direct application was incompetent after appointment of the Provisional Liquidator; the Official Liquidator was the proper party to pursue recovery. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234154