TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the liquidator could sell the corporate debtor's assets under the liquidation regulations and distribute the proceeds under the general waterfall, despite the respondent's lien and security interest, or whether the respondent was entitled to proceed under section 52 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Analysis: The respondent's claim rested on an arbitral award declaring a lien over the machinery and erected facilities at site, which was binding on the corporate debtor and had not been challenged. The corporate debtor's hypothecation in favour of bankers did not bind the respondent, since the respondent was not a party to that charge. The distinction between lien and hypothecation was material: a lien-holder may enforce the asset in preference to a hypothecation charge, while hypothecation contemplates possession with the borrower and enforcement by the creditor. In liquidation, a secured creditor is entitled to proceed under section 52 and its right is not displaced merely because the liquidator seeks to treat the asset as falling within the general distribution mechanism under section 53.
Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to enforce its security interest under section 52, and the liquidator could not sell the asset as part of the general liquidation estate under section 53 unless the security interest was relinquished.
TaxTMI 
