https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96871 Attachment of a debt due from a bank did not create any preferential right for the decree-holder after the bank entered liquidation; the decree-holder merely stepped into the judgment-debtor's shoes and had to rank as an unsecured creditor in winding up. The leave of the Company Court was required before execution against the Official Liquidator, and permission to continue proceedings or seek a garnishee order did not extend to levy of execution. The bank was not shown to have acted fraudulently or to have used liquidation to defeat execution, so it was entitled to resist the process. The decree-holder's remedy lay only in the winding-up proceedings. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 1941 00:00:00 +0630 Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:19:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96871 Attachment of a debt due from a bank did not create any preferential right for the decree-holder after the bank entered liquidation; the decree-holder merely stepped into the judgment-debtor's shoes and had to rank as an unsecured creditor in winding up. The leave of the Company Court was required before execution against the Official Liquidator, and permission to continue proceedings or seek a garnishee order did not extend to levy of execution. The bank was not shown to have acted fraudulently or to have used liquidation to defeat execution, so it was entitled to resist the process. The decree-holder's remedy lay only in the winding-up proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 17 Dec 1941 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96871