https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461105 Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as conferring wide jurisdiction on the winding-up court to deal with proceedings against a company and matters relating to its assets in liquidation, including landlords' requests for recovery of possession of leased premises. The Delhi HC applied its earlier Full Bench view and held that rent-control protection does not bar the Company Court from examining whether the premises are genuinely required by the Official Liquidator for liquidation purposes. On the stated facts, the premises were no longer needed for liquidation or any viable revival scheme, rent had remained unpaid for years, and the applications for possession were maintained, with restoration directed to the landlords. en-us Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:06:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461105 Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as conferring wide jurisdiction on the winding-up court to deal with proceedings against a company and matters relating to its assets in liquidation, including landlords' requests for recovery of possession of leased premises. The Delhi HC applied its earlier Full Bench view and held that rent-control protection does not bar the Company Court from examining whether the premises are genuinely required by the Official Liquidator for liquidation purposes. On the stated facts, the premises were no longer needed for liquidation or any viable revival scheme, rent had remained unpaid for years, and the applications for possession were maintained, with restoration directed to the landlords. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461105