TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether attachment of the respondent-company's property by the Delhi High Court in the civil proceedings created a charge or preferential right in favour of the petitioner-company; (ii) Whether the attachment ordered under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, conferred on the petitioner-company the status of a secured creditor notwithstanding the winding up proceedings and Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Issue (i): Whether attachment of the respondent-company's property by the Delhi High Court in the civil proceedings created a charge or preferential right in favour of the petitioner-company.
Analysis: An attachment under Order 21 Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure only restrains alienation and prevents third-party interests in the property. It does not create any charge, lien, title, or proprietary interest in favour of the attaching creditor. The attached property is merely kept under the control of the court, and the decree-holder acquires no preferential right over it by reason of attachment alone.
Conclusion: The attachment by the Delhi High Court did not create any charge or secured status in favour of the petitioner-company, and no preferential right arose from that attachment.
Issue (ii): Whether the attachment ordered under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, conferred on the petitioner-company the status of a secured creditor notwithstanding the winding up proceedings and Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Analysis: The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 is a special enactment intended to secure property procured through scheduled offences. Under Sections 12 and 13, the attached property can be forfeited or applied only upon the criminal proceedings ending in conviction and upon the criminal court recording the requisite finding as to the value procured by the offence. The attachment, however, remains effective and is not displaced by the winding up order or by Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 at the present stage, because no further coercive step had yet been taken after attachment and the contingent statutory process had not matured. The petitioner-company's claim therefore stands on a special footing and not as that of an ordinary unsecured creditor, though the secured status is conditional upon final conviction and the finding under Section 12.
Conclusion: The petitioner-company was held entitled to be treated as a secured creditor in respect of the property attached by the District Judge, Ludhiana, up to Rs. 1.50 crores, but only subject to final conviction in the criminal proceedings and the finding contemplated by Section 12 of the Ordinance.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only in part: the petitioner-company was recognised as having a conditional secured claim over the property attached under the 1944 Ordinance, while no such right was recognised in relation to the property attached in the civil proceedings before the Delhi High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: A civil attachment under the Code of Civil Procedure does not create a charge or lien, whereas attachment under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 operates as a special statutory safeguard that can mature into forfeiture or recovery in favour of the Government only through the procedure prescribed by Sections 12 and 13.
TaxTMI 
