2010 (7) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order dated May 4, 2010, passed by a learned single judge, by which his Lordship, while disposing of an application under section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") filed by the landlord of the premises in question, gave liberty to the said applicant to institute a suit against the company in liquidation subject to the condition that such suit should be instituted only in the company court. 2. Being dissatisfied, the alleged sub-tenant has come up with the present appeal. 3. In the proceedings for winding up of the company in liquidation, the applicant, namely, Radha Kanta Dhar, claiming to be the owner of the three godowns, let out at premises No. 309, B.B. Ganguly Street, Calcutta-700 012 in favour of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with the present appeal. 7. Mr. Bose, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended before us that the learned company court acted without jurisdiction in granting such leave while disposing of an application under section 535 of the Act. In other words, Mr. Bose contends that there was no scope of granting such liberty within the scope of section 535 of the Act. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order granting leave. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that a company court is vested with jurisdiction under section 446(2) of the Act to entertain any suit against the company in liquidation notwithstanding anything to the contra....