Stay of suits, etc., on winding up order
Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with stay of suits, etc., on winding up order. When a winding up order has been passed or a provisional liquidator has been appointed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of the winding up order, shall be proceeded with, by or against the company, except with the leave of the Tribunal and subject to su The Act came into force on 01 Apr 2014.
(1) When a winding up order has been passed or a provisional liquidator has been appointed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of the winding up order, shall be proceeded with, by or against the company, except with the leave of the Tribunal and subject to such terms as the Tribunal may impose:
Provided that any application to the Tribunal seeking leave under this section shall be disposed of by the Tribunal within sixty days.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to any proceeding pending in appeal before the Supreme Court or a High Court.
Section 279, The Companies Act, 2013 (Act 18 of 2013).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Action Ispat and Power Pvt. LTD vs Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even post-admission of a winding up petition and after appointment of a Company Liquidator to take over assets of a company sought to be wound up, discretion is vested in the Company Court to transfer such petition to the NCLT. Such discretion should be exercised based on whether irreversible steps have been taken in the winding up proceedings. If no actual sales of immovable or movable properties have taken place and the proceedings have not reached a stage making it impossible to set the clock back, the Company Court should transfer the proceedings to NCLT to be dealt with as an application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, in accordance with the legislative intent to prioritize corporate revival over liquidation.
On this section: Stay of suits on winding up order - no legal proceeding can be commenced or proceeded with except with leave of NCLT
-
State Bank of India vs Apex Encon Projects Private Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
On a secured creditor's applications under Section 279 for a direction to the Official Liquidator permitting sale of mortgaged property of a company in liquidation, the Court held that leave and directions of this kind must be sought from the High Court exercising jurisdiction over the company in liquidation, namely the court within whose territory its registered office lies, and closed the applications with liberty to move that court.
On this section: Identifies the forum competent to grant leave under this section, holding that the winding-up court having jurisdiction over the company in liquidation, and not the court where the assets happen to lie, must decide the Section 279 application.
-
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. vs Rajat Pharmachem LTD, Anr.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Leave under Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013 (corresponding to Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956) was granted to implead the Official Liquidator as a party defendant to a pending civil suit, the Court accepting and recording the applicant's statement that it would claim no relief against the company in liquidation in that suit.
On this section: A direct illustration of the Section 279 leave mechanism: the Court grants leave to proceed against a company in liquidation on terms that protect the estate, here by confining the suit to relief against the other defendants.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… He argued that this was a result of our decisions and that Section 238 of the IBC, which contains a non-obstante clause, clearly comes to his rescue as, if there is any conflict between Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 / Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the IBC, the IBC will prevail. According to him, this point is no longer res integra . He also argued, in the alternative, that there are no irretrievable steps that have been taken in the winding up proceeding in the present case, as the provisional liquidator continues to be seized …
-
… is given the power under Section 273 to dismiss it; to make any interim order as it thinks fit; to appoint a provisional liquidator of the company till the making of a winding up order; to make an order for the winding up of the company; or to pass any other order as it thinks fit – see section 273(1). 13. Sections 278 and 279 of the Companies Act, 2013 then follow, 23 which state: " 278. Effect of winding-up order .—The order for the winding-up of a company shall operate in favour of all the creditors and all contributories of the company as if it had been made out on the joint petition of creditors and contributories." " …
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 279
What have the courts held on Section 279 of the Companies Act?
Action Ispat and Power Pvt. LTD vs Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited (15 Dec 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Stay of suits on winding up order - no legal proceeding can be commenced or proceeded with except with leave of NCLT. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2019 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 279 of the Companies Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Companies Act 279, section 279 Companies Act, section 279 of the Companies Act. People searching for it also type section 279 companies act 2013. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Action Ispat and Power Pvt. LTD vs Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited (15 Dec 2020).
What should I read with Section 279 of the Companies Act, and has it changed?
One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently Companies (winding up) Rules 2020 (2020).
When did Section 279 of the Companies Act come into force?
Section 279 of the Companies Act, cited as Companies Act 279, came into force on 01 Apr 2014, having been enacted on 29 Aug 2013. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions5089 words
- 143. Powers and duties of auditors and auditing standards1867 words
- 230. Power to compromise or make arrangements with creditors and members1432 words
- 232. Merger and amalgamation of companies1416 words
- 149. Company to have Board of Directors1403 words
- 217. Procedure, powers, etc., of inspectors1390 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 17 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.