Section 536(2) was construed as making post-petition dispositions voidable rather than automatically void, so the court could validate a bona fide transaction if it benefited the company or creditors. The first transaction was validated because the applicant showed no knowledge of the winding-up petition despite due diligence, paid above market value, used the proceeds to discharge creditors, and no fraud, taint, or undervaluation was proved. Alleged statutory dues did not defeat validation on the material before the court. The second transaction, being a private inter se transfer, was held outside the scope of the application and was not adjudicated.
Section 536(2) was construed as making post-petition dispositions voidable rather than automatically void, so the court could validate a bona fide transaction if it benefited the company or creditors. The first transaction was validated because the applicant showed no knowledge of the winding-up petition despite due diligence, paid above market value, used the proceeds to discharge creditors, and no fraud, taint, or undervaluation was proved. Alleged statutory dues did not defeat validation on the material before the court. The second transaction, being a private inter se transfer, was held outside the scope of the application and was not adjudicated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
