<?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>1954 (9) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97304</link>
    <description>A bona fide private sale by a receiver appointed under a debenture was not liable to be set aside merely because publicity was limited or a higher price might later have been obtained; absent fraud or lack of bona fides, irregularity in notice did not defeat the sale. The winding-up provisions of the Companies Act did not render the sale void, because a private sale by a secured creditor or receiver under a contractual power of sale is not a legal proceeding and is not a sale &quot;held&quot; without leave of court. The preferential claims and floating-charge provisions also did not invalidate the transaction, since the charge had crystallised when the receiver took possession before winding up.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:20:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (9) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97304</link>
      <description>A bona fide private sale by a receiver appointed under a debenture was not liable to be set aside merely because publicity was limited or a higher price might later have been obtained; absent fraud or lack of bona fides, irregularity in notice did not defeat the sale. The winding-up provisions of the Companies Act did not render the sale void, because a private sale by a secured creditor or receiver under a contractual power of sale is not a legal proceeding and is not a sale &quot;held&quot; without leave of court. The preferential claims and floating-charge provisions also did not invalidate the transaction, since the charge had crystallised when the receiver took possession before winding up.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>