https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767306 The Bombay HC ruled in favor of applicants seeking possession of premises leased to a company in liquidation. Under Section 446 of the Companies Act, the Court found the official liquidator's claim that the premises were needed for storing company records was not genuine, as the liquidator's own report stated no books or accounts were found there. The Court rejected arguments from ex-directors about company revival, noting their perfunctory efforts. The HC directed the official liquidator to hand over vacant possession, concluding the premises were not required for winding up proceedings and continued rental burden was unjustified. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:41:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767306 The Bombay HC ruled in favor of applicants seeking possession of premises leased to a company in liquidation. Under Section 446 of the Companies Act, the Court found the official liquidator's claim that the premises were needed for storing company records was not genuine, as the liquidator's own report stated no books or accounts were found there. The Court rejected arguments from ex-directors about company revival, noting their perfunctory efforts. The HC directed the official liquidator to hand over vacant possession, concluding the premises were not required for winding up proceedings and continued rental burden was unjustified. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767306