<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1941 (9) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96866</link>
    <description>Post-commencement conversion of an ordinary deposit into a security deposit is prima facie void under section 227(2) because it alters an unsecured creditor&#039;s position and creates preferential rights over company property. Validation depends on whether exceptional necessity, business preservation, or another justification would have warranted prior court approval, while protecting pari passu distribution among creditors. Knowledge of a pending winding-up petition and the resulting undue advantage weigh against validation. Absence of conscious fraud or fraudulent preference does not itself justify sustaining the disposition. The transaction was not validated, and the appellant&#039;s claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 1941 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:52:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1941 (9) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96866</link>
      <description>Post-commencement conversion of an ordinary deposit into a security deposit is prima facie void under section 227(2) because it alters an unsecured creditor&#039;s position and creates preferential rights over company property. Validation depends on whether exceptional necessity, business preservation, or another justification would have warranted prior court approval, while protecting pari passu distribution among creditors. Knowledge of a pending winding-up petition and the resulting undue advantage weigh against validation. Absence of conscious fraud or fraudulent preference does not itself justify sustaining the disposition. The transaction was not validated, and the appellant&#039;s claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 1941 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>