https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199124 The RDB Act's special jurisdiction over recovery did not dispense with the need to respect the Company Court's control over assets already in the custody of a provisional liquidator. Deemed custody under Section 456 of the Companies Act and the winding-up scheme required the Tribunal and its Advocate-Commissioner to proceed consistently with the Company Court to avoid conflicting orders. The prior Supreme Court ruling on the RDB Act was held not to govern this distinct issue. Leave of the Company Court was therefore necessary before the company assets could be proceeded against. en-us Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:05:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199124 The RDB Act's special jurisdiction over recovery did not dispense with the need to respect the Company Court's control over assets already in the custody of a provisional liquidator. Deemed custody under Section 456 of the Companies Act and the winding-up scheme required the Tribunal and its Advocate-Commissioner to proceed consistently with the Company Court to avoid conflicting orders. The prior Supreme Court ruling on the RDB Act was held not to govern this distinct issue. Leave of the Company Court was therefore necessary before the company assets could be proceeded against. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199124