https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342580 A post-commencement sub-lease of company property was held void under section 536(2) because winding-up proceedings commence from the BIFR recommendation for winding up, and any disposition thereafter requires Court validation. The alleged consent to sub-let was obtained only after that commencement, the lease did not confer an automatic right to create a sub-lease, and no proof showed bona fide conduct, ordinary-course dealing, or benefit to the company in liquidation. The Company Court also had jurisdiction under section 446(2)(d) to decide the Official Liquidator's report despite a pending small causes suit. The sub-lease was not validated and possession had to be handed over to the Official Liquidator. en-us Fri, 05 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Dec 2019 11:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342580 A post-commencement sub-lease of company property was held void under section 536(2) because winding-up proceedings commence from the BIFR recommendation for winding up, and any disposition thereafter requires Court validation. The alleged consent to sub-let was obtained only after that commencement, the lease did not confer an automatic right to create a sub-lease, and no proof showed bona fide conduct, ordinary-course dealing, or benefit to the company in liquidation. The Company Court also had jurisdiction under section 446(2)(d) to decide the Official Liquidator's report despite a pending small causes suit. The sub-lease was not validated and possession had to be handed over to the Official Liquidator. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 05 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342580