TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
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 ✕ 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: (i) Whether the auction sales and their later conveyances were void under section 227(2) of the Companies Act, 1913 or liable to be avoided as fraudulent preferences under section 231 of that Act; (ii) Whether the adjustments of shareholders' call money against their deposits or claims were void under section 227(2) of the Companies Act, 1913; (iii) Whether the chairman's statement and the court order regarding the tea gardens created a charge so as to make the petitioners secured creditors.
Issue (i): Whether the auction sales and their later conveyances were void under section 227(2) of the Companies Act, 1913 or liable to be avoided as fraudulent preferences under section 231 of that Act.
Analysis: The properties were sold pursuant to a sanctioned scheme and the auction resulted in a completed contract when the highest bids were accepted. The later execution and registration of conveyances merely completed that prior binding contract. A transaction entered into before the winding up proceedings is not rendered fraudulent merely because performance is completed later, and there was no evidence of any voluntary preference created after the petition so as to attract the avoidance provisions.
Conclusion: The auction sales and their completion were not void and were not liable to be avoided as fraudulent preferences.
Issue (ii): Whether the adjustments of shareholders' call money against their deposits or claims were void under section 227(2) of the Companies Act, 1913.
Analysis: The adjustments were made after presentation of the winding up petition and amounted to a disposition of the company's property in favour of selected shareholder-creditors. They were neither authorised by the scheme nor permitted by the court's order, and they displaced the pari passu treatment due to the general body of creditors. Such post-petition preferential adjustments could not be treated as ordinary business transactions or as protected payments.
Conclusion: The adjustments were void and ineffective under section 227(2) of the Companies Act, 1913.
Issue (iii): Whether the chairman's statement and the court order regarding the tea gardens created a charge so as to make the petitioners secured creditors.
Analysis: The statement was only a personal undertaking that the tea gardens would not be sold on the fixed date. The court did not create any charge over the property, and no particulars of any alleged charge were filed with the Registrar as required by section 109 of the Companies Act, 1913. Without compliance with the statutory registration requirement, no enforceable security could arise against the official liquidator.
Conclusion: No charge was created and the petitioners were not secured creditors.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the auction sales failed, the challenge to the post-petition adjustments succeeded, and the claim to secured status failed, resulting in partial relief to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: A disposition completed after commencement of winding up is void if it is an unauthorised post-petition dealing with company assets, but a later conveyance that merely perfects a binding pre-petition contract is not avoidable; a charge cannot arise without a clear creation of security and compliance with statutory registration requirements.
TaxTMI 
