https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288329 Petitions for refund of fixed deposits with agreed interest were found not maintainable before the NCLT because winding up proceedings against the company were already pending before the High Court and a provisional liquidator had been appointed. In that situation, continuation of proceedings against the company required leave of the winding up court under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and no such leave had been obtained. The Tribunal also relied on the High Court's no-coercive-action order and directed that the depositors pursue their claims in the pending winding up proceedings. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jun 2020 01:37:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288329 Petitions for refund of fixed deposits with agreed interest were found not maintainable before the NCLT because winding up proceedings against the company were already pending before the High Court and a provisional liquidator had been appointed. In that situation, continuation of proceedings against the company required leave of the winding up court under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and no such leave had been obtained. The Tribunal also relied on the High Court's no-coercive-action order and directed that the depositors pursue their claims in the pending winding up proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288329