Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Roopnarain Ramchandra Private Ltd. vs Brahmapootra Tea Co. (India) Ltd. And ... on 10 March, 1961
5. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants on a decision of a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Roopnarain Ramchandra Pvt. Ltd. v. Brahmapootra Tea Co. (India) Ltd., AIR 1962 Cal 192. This relates to Section 448 of the new Act and his Lordship has held at page 194 as follows :
The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006
Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909
Section 171 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Nabin Kishori Choudhurany vs Jagneswar Sanyal And Ors. on 8 May, 1933
In fact, there is an observation in a Calcutta case Nabin Kishore Chaudhary v. Jagneshwar Sanyal, AIR 1933 Cal 809 that if no objection is raised before the court of first instance the decree is not defective in any sense. But in view of the provision in Section 537 of the present Companies Act, 1956, the decree cannot be executed as against the effects or properties of the Company in liquidation, without the leave of the court, which, of course, means the winding up court. Such a case is, therefore, covered by the comment of Solomon Judah on the Act and quoted with approval by the Lahore High Court in AIR 1942 Lah 289 (FB) to the effect that if a suit is continued without leave obtained under the said section, the decree is not binding on the liquidator. Hence the decree under execution in the instant case is not binding on the liquidator and hence proceedings in execution cannot continue. The matter has, therefore, to be taken to the winding up court for further order. Any observation made by the executing court regarding the nature of the decree or its exe-cutability must be ruled out as being of no effect.
1