1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Union of India not entitled to preferential claim in liquidation under Companies Act, 1956</h1> The court ruled that the Union of India's claim for outstanding amounts against a company in liquidation did not qualify as a preferential claim under the ... Winding up - Preferential payments Issues: Preferential claim of Union of India under Companies Act, 1956.The judgment pertains to a petition under section 446 read with section 528 of the Companies Act, 1956, filed by the Union of India against a company in liquidation. The Union of India claimed outstanding amounts related to the sale of machinery, rent for premises, and other dues. The company admitted liability for certain amounts but disputed one specific claim. The key contention was whether the Union of India's claim of Rs. 16,804.27 should be treated as a preferential claim under the Companies Act, 1956.The Union of India claimed that the outstanding amounts due to them should be treated as preferential claims. They relied on legal precedents and argued that debts due to the Crown should have priority over debts due to private citizens. The petitioner referred to a previous judgment by the same judge in a property tax case to support their claim for preferential treatment.The official liquidator of the company contested the preferential claim, citing section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956, and referring to past court decisions. The official liquidator argued that the specific debts claimed by the Union of India did not fall under the category of preferential payments as outlined in the Companies Act, 1956. They highlighted that the Act specified certain types of debts that could be considered preferential, and the Union of India's claims did not align with those criteria.The judge analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed relevant legal provisions and case law. Referring to past judgments involving similar issues, the judge concluded that the Union of India's claim did not qualify as a preferential claim under the Companies Act, 1956. The judge emphasized that the Act specified certain types of debts that could be prioritized, and the Union of India's claims did not fall within those categories. Therefore, the judge ruled that the Union of India was entitled to receive the outstanding amount of Rs. 16,804.27 from the company as an ordinary creditor, not as a preferential claimant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
