Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)
The Official Liquidator Of Navinon Ltd. ... vs Indian Link Chain Mfg.Ltd. ... on 27 November, 2025 cites

Shri Laxman Yeswant Prabhudesai vs Nrc Limited on 22 March, 2010

A. Section 441(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, makes clear that the winding up of a company is deemed to have commenced from the date of presentation of a winding-up petition, which in the facts of the present case was admittedly on 3rd November 2001. The Deed of Assignment was executed on 16th May 2019, which is nearly eighteen years after the commencement of winding up. B. Section 536(2) of the Companies Act unequivocally provides that any disposition of a company's property made after the commencement of winding up is void, unless the Court specifically directs otherwise. The provision is mandatory, and the power of validation conferred Kiran Kawre ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:00:44 ::: 21/26 3-IAL-26905-2024.DOC upon the Court is an exceptional one, as is clear from the decisions in the case of Sunita Vasudeo Warke v. Official Liquidator , Laxman Yeshwant Prabhudesai v. NRC Ltd. , and Sarigam Containers Pvt. Ltd. v. Magatul Industries Ltd. Thus the discretion vested in the Court under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act is one which is to be exercised sparingly and only where the transferee clearly establishes that the transaction was bona fide, effected in the ordinary course of the company's business, or was demonstrably beneficial to the company or its creditors or in those circumstances where no possible prejudice would be caused by validating such a transaction. These decisions clearly enunciate that the Official Liquidator's delay or inaction, the transferee's good faith, or private dealings without the Liquidator's knowledge cannot displace the statutory presumption of voidness. Such factors alone cannot justify the disposition of a company's property after the commencement of winding-up proceedings against the company.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sunita Vasudeo Warke Apellant vs Official Liquidator And Others on 11 January, 2013

A. Section 441(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, makes clear that the winding up of a company is deemed to have commenced from the date of presentation of a winding-up petition, which in the facts of the present case was admittedly on 3rd November 2001. The Deed of Assignment was executed on 16th May 2019, which is nearly eighteen years after the commencement of winding up. B. Section 536(2) of the Companies Act unequivocally provides that any disposition of a company's property made after the commencement of winding up is void, unless the Court specifically directs otherwise. The provision is mandatory, and the power of validation conferred Kiran Kawre ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:00:44 ::: 21/26 3-IAL-26905-2024.DOC upon the Court is an exceptional one, as is clear from the decisions in the case of Sunita Vasudeo Warke v. Official Liquidator , Laxman Yeshwant Prabhudesai v. NRC Ltd. , and Sarigam Containers Pvt. Ltd. v. Magatul Industries Ltd. Thus the discretion vested in the Court under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act is one which is to be exercised sparingly and only where the transferee clearly establishes that the transaction was bona fide, effected in the ordinary course of the company's business, or was demonstrably beneficial to the company or its creditors or in those circumstances where no possible prejudice would be caused by validating such a transaction. These decisions clearly enunciate that the Official Liquidator's delay or inaction, the transferee's good faith, or private dealings without the Liquidator's knowledge cannot displace the statutory presumption of voidness. Such factors alone cannot justify the disposition of a company's property after the commencement of winding-up proceedings against the company.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Sarigam Containers Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Magatul Industries Limited (In ... on 2 June, 2008

A. Section 441(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, makes clear that the winding up of a company is deemed to have commenced from the date of presentation of a winding-up petition, which in the facts of the present case was admittedly on 3rd November 2001. The Deed of Assignment was executed on 16th May 2019, which is nearly eighteen years after the commencement of winding up. B. Section 536(2) of the Companies Act unequivocally provides that any disposition of a company's property made after the commencement of winding up is void, unless the Court specifically directs otherwise. The provision is mandatory, and the power of validation conferred Kiran Kawre ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:00:44 ::: 21/26 3-IAL-26905-2024.DOC upon the Court is an exceptional one, as is clear from the decisions in the case of Sunita Vasudeo Warke v. Official Liquidator , Laxman Yeshwant Prabhudesai v. NRC Ltd. , and Sarigam Containers Pvt. Ltd. v. Magatul Industries Ltd. Thus the discretion vested in the Court under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act is one which is to be exercised sparingly and only where the transferee clearly establishes that the transaction was bona fide, effected in the ordinary course of the company's business, or was demonstrably beneficial to the company or its creditors or in those circumstances where no possible prejudice would be caused by validating such a transaction. These decisions clearly enunciate that the Official Liquidator's delay or inaction, the transferee's good faith, or private dealings without the Liquidator's knowledge cannot displace the statutory presumption of voidness. Such factors alone cannot justify the disposition of a company's property after the commencement of winding-up proceedings against the company.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1   2 Next