TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: (i) Whether the Recovery Officer should ascertain the entitlement of secured and unsecured creditors in the liquidation proceedings by applying the statutory priorities under the Companies Act and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act.
Analysis: The dispute arose because secured creditors claimed entitlement to enforce their full dues on the basis of the recovery certificate, while the unsecured creditors objected to any further claim by the secured creditors after adjudication of claims by the Official Liquidator. The Court noted that the amount lying in deposit was to be sent to the Recovery Officer for disbursement, but the competing claims required determination of entitlement with reference to the priorities prescribed by Section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 31-B of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. For provisional determination, the Recovery Officer was directed to proceed on the basis that Rs. 20 crores was available for disbursement and to consider the claims of both secured and unsecured creditors in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The Recovery Officer was directed to determine the entitlement of the secured and unsecured creditors by applying the statutory priorities, and the matter was not finally adjudicated on the merits of inter se claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
