https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791608 Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 is discussed in the context of the Official Liquidator's application, with the Company Court's jurisdiction treated as valid for deciding the issues raised. The High Court's reasoning, as noted in the text, was that the transfer of leasehold rights in liquidation was an involuntary formal transfer, so differential premium was not payable on that basis. The question of extension charges was left open to be examined when the lessor lodges its claim in liquidation. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that judgment. en-us Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2026 09:01:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791608 Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 is discussed in the context of the Official Liquidator's application, with the Company Court's jurisdiction treated as valid for deciding the issues raised. The High Court's reasoning, as noted in the text, was that the transfer of leasehold rights in liquidation was an involuntary formal transfer, so differential premium was not payable on that basis. The question of extension charges was left open to be examined when the lessor lodges its claim in liquidation. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that judgment. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791608