https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397641 Company Court jurisdiction under section 446(2) extended to questions arising in the winding up and transfer of a company asset, so the application for transfer and related charges was justiciable before the Company Court. The transfer through the Official Liquidator was treated as an involuntary transfer in liquidation, so differential premium was rejected and only standard transfer charges were payable. A stale demand relating to an earlier change in the allottee's name was barred by limitation. Extension charges were recoverable under MIDC policy for non-completion of the building within time, and the building-completion period was extended subject to payment of charges as determined through the Official Liquidator. en-us Fri, 21 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jan 2021 18:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397641 Company Court jurisdiction under section 446(2) extended to questions arising in the winding up and transfer of a company asset, so the application for transfer and related charges was justiciable before the Company Court. The transfer through the Official Liquidator was treated as an involuntary transfer in liquidation, so differential premium was rejected and only standard transfer charges were payable. A stale demand relating to an earlier change in the allottee's name was barred by limitation. Extension charges were recoverable under MIDC policy for non-completion of the building within time, and the building-completion period was extended subject to payment of charges as determined through the Official Liquidator. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 21 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397641