Security interests and winding-up priority cannot arise from an undertaking alone; statutory charge rules and workmen's priority prevail.

A court order or undertaking does not by itself create a mortgage, charge, lien or other enforceable security in favour of ONGC, and secured creditor status cannot arise without compliance with statutory requirements such as registration of charge. The High Court also held that any claim to priority in winding up must yield to the Companies Act, 1956, under which section 529 subjects secured creditors to the pari passu charge of workmen and section 529A gives overriding priority to workmen's dues and the protected debt of secured creditors. ONGC's preferential claim was therefore untenable, and any claim had to be pursued within the statutory winding-up scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether ONGC could be treated as a secured creditor on the basis of the Supreme Court orders and the undertaking recorded therein; (ii) Whether ONGC could claim priority over the claims of secured creditors and workmen in the winding up proceedings, ignoring the statutory scheme under sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether ONGC could be treated as a secured creditor on the basis of the Supreme Court orders and the undertaking recorded therein.

Analysis: The interim order requiring consumers to continue supply arrangements on an undertaking not to charge, encumber or alienate immovable assets did not by itself create a mortgage, charge or lien in favour of ONGC. A charge, even if assumed, had to satisfy the statutory requirement of registration under section 125 of the Companies Act, 1956, which was not shown. ONGC also failed to establish possession-based lien or any recognised security interest under the applicable legal framework. The Court therefore held that the undertaking and the connected orders did not confer secured creditor status.

Conclusion: ONGC was not a secured creditor.

Issue (ii): Whether ONGC could claim priority over the claims of secured creditors and workmen in the winding up proceedings, ignoring the statutory scheme under sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The Court held that the Supreme Court orders, including those passed under Article 142, could not override substantive statutory provisions governing winding up. Section 529 makes the security of every secured creditor subject to the pari passu charge of workmen, and section 529A gives overriding priority to workmen's dues and debts due to secured creditors to that extent. The judgment in Textile Labour Association made it clear that ONGC's claim, if any, had to be worked out in accordance with those provisions. As ONGC neither established a valid security nor could claim priority above the statutory classes protected by sections 529 and 529A, its preferential claim was untenable.

Conclusion: ONGC could not claim priority over secured creditors and workmen; any claim had to be worked out in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956.

Final Conclusion: The application failed because ONGC could not establish secured creditor status or a superior enforceable priority outside the statutory winding-up scheme, and it remained at liberty only to lodge its claim in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A court order or undertaking cannot confer secured creditor status or priority in winding up unless it creates a legally enforceable security recognised by statute, and the statutory pari passu and priority regime under sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 prevails over any inconsistent claim to preference.

---