9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X 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 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 contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned single judge, in this case, has refused the prayer of disclaimer made under section 535 of the Act as the official liquidator failed to produce sufficient materials relating to the tenancy in question in his possession and in such a situation, while refusing such prayer, has merely granted liberty to the landlord to file a suit which the company court is entitled to entertain as provided in section 446(2) of the Act. 11. We, therefore, find that there was nothing wrong on the part of the learned single judge in granting such leave while refusing relief in terms of section 535 of the Act. 12. We, thus, find no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the company court, which was within the power of the said court. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
