1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Bank consortium's unregistered charge takes priority over registered charge under Section 77 Companies Act 2013</h1> The SC dismissed an appeal concerning priority of charges over a corporate debtor's movable assets. The case involved a dispute between a respondent who ... Doctrine of priority - priority of chrages - first/primary charge over the movable assets of the Corporate Debtor - whether the Respondent's registration of a charge under Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013, or UCO Bank Consortium's non-registration of the charge with the ROC can become the basis for disregarding UCO Bank Consortium first charge based on 8th Supplemental Deed of Working Capital Consortium Agreement? - it was held by NCLAT that 'The arguments of the Respondent w.r.t. his holding first charge on movable assets of Corporate Debtor due to charge registered with RoC are not attractive.' HELD THAT:- There are no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal - appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court, with Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan presiding, condoned the delay and, after hearing counsel and reviewing the record, found 'no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.' Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.