https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301837 A winding-up petition cannot rest on a contractual claim where the underlying contract was entered into in breach of Section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956. Prior board consent was required, and where the company's paid-up share capital exceeded one crore rupees, prior Central Government approval was also mandatory; neither approval was obtained. Section 297(5) does not cure a breach of the proviso to Section 297(1), and Section 629-A imposes only penal consequences without validating the illegal transaction. As a result, the claimed sum was not a legally recoverable debt, and a petition under Section 433(e) can proceed only on such a debt. en-us Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:39:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301837 A winding-up petition cannot rest on a contractual claim where the underlying contract was entered into in breach of Section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956. Prior board consent was required, and where the company's paid-up share capital exceeded one crore rupees, prior Central Government approval was also mandatory; neither approval was obtained. Section 297(5) does not cure a breach of the proviso to Section 297(1), and Section 629-A imposes only penal consequences without validating the illegal transaction. As a result, the claimed sum was not a legally recoverable debt, and a petition under Section 433(e) can proceed only on such a debt. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301837