1984 (8) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lding, 60, Nehru Place, New Delhi. These flats were leased out to M/s. Sehgal Papers Ltd., respondent-company, for a period of three years. The respondent-company took possession of the premises in dispute on January 23, 1979. The respondent-company defaulted in the payment of rent. The appellants were thus constrained to file proceedings for the ejectment of the respondent-company before the Rent Controller, New Delhi. Subsequent to the filing of the ejectment applications, the respondent-company went into liquidation. This court thus ordered the official liquidator to function as the provisional liquidator, vide orders dated March 15, 1983. In fact, numerous winding-up petitions were filed in the High Court for the winding-up of the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dge, who was seized of the matter, ordered that the ejectment applications should be adjourned sine die and they be listed after the decision in Company Application No. 200 of 1983. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants have filed these appeals. In order to appreciate the controversy in the case, it will be apposite to notice the provisions of section 446 of the Companies Act at the very threshold. It reads; "446. (1) When a winding up order has been made and the official liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of the winding-up order, shall be proceeded with, against the company, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms ....