https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194804 A company court may examine possession disputes arising during liquidation under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 even after the winding-up order is stayed, but interference with occupation depends on the occupants' position and any express undertaking to vacate. An order clarifying an earlier judicial direction cannot validly affect substantive rights without notice and hearing to the affected parties, and a clarification made without hearing was set aside for breach of natural justice. Occupants who had given an undertaking tied to the company regaining possession were bound to vacate and hand over vacant possession. en-us Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:17:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194804 A company court may examine possession disputes arising during liquidation under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 even after the winding-up order is stayed, but interference with occupation depends on the occupants' position and any express undertaking to vacate. An order clarifying an earlier judicial direction cannot validly affect substantive rights without notice and hearing to the affected parties, and a clarification made without hearing was set aside for breach of natural justice. Occupants who had given an undertaking tied to the company regaining possession were bound to vacate and hand over vacant possession. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194804