https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197830 In company winding-up proceedings, the company court may exercise wide summary jurisdiction under section 446(2) to decide claims, defences, and questions of law or fact without requiring a separate suit. The article notes that the appellant had been heard and participated, so the eviction procedure was not contrary to due process. It also states that leases granted in favour of the appellant were void, because the first lease conflicted with the company's undertaking not to alienate assets without prior approval, and the renewal lease fell within the prohibition on dispositions after commencement of winding up under section 536(2) unless the court otherwise ordered. The appellant's claim to continue in possession therefore failed. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:15:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197830 In company winding-up proceedings, the company court may exercise wide summary jurisdiction under section 446(2) to decide claims, defences, and questions of law or fact without requiring a separate suit. The article notes that the appellant had been heard and participated, so the eviction procedure was not contrary to due process. It also states that leases granted in favour of the appellant were void, because the first lease conflicted with the company's undertaking not to alienate assets without prior approval, and the renewal lease fell within the prohibition on dispositions after commencement of winding up under section 536(2) unless the court otherwise ordered. The appellant's claim to continue in possession therefore failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197830