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 a revision petition against an order affecting a company in liquidation could proceed without the leave of the Liquidation Court under Section 171 of the Companies Act; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to rateable distribution of the sale proceeds where its property had been attached in execution before the sale and before receipt of assets by the executing court.
Issue (i): whether a revision petition against an order affecting a company in liquidation could proceed without the leave of the Liquidation Court under Section 171 of the Companies Act.
Analysis: The challenge arose in a proceeding where the company in liquidation had itself moved the executing court for rateable distribution. The revision petition was brought by a rival decree-holder against the order made in those proceedings. In that setting, leave of the Liquidation Court was not treated as a prerequisite for entertaining the revisional proceeding.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on Section 171 of the Companies Act was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to rateable distribution of the sale proceeds where its property had been attached in execution before the sale and before receipt of assets by the executing court.
Analysis: The house had already been attached in execution of the petitioner's decree before it was sold in execution of the prior decree-holder's decree and before the sale proceeds were received by the executing court. In those circumstances, the petitioner was not required to obtain a transfer of execution or make a fresh formal application to the receiving court before the assets were received. Section 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure was held inapplicable on the facts as discussed by the Court.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to share rateably in the sale proceeds.
Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge succeeded, the objection under the Companies Act failed, and the petitioner's claim to rateable distribution was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a decree-holder's property has been attached in execution before the sale and before receipt of the sale proceeds by the court, the decree-holder's right to rateable distribution is not defeated merely because no fresh formal application was made to that court before receipt of the assets.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
