<?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>1955 (4) TMI 20 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97330</link>
    <description>A secured creditor&#039;s independent contractual power of sale over a company&#039;s assets, exercised by a receiver after commencement of winding up, was held not to require leave of the winding-up court under section 232(1) of the Indian Companies Act. The provision was construed narrowly, in context with sections 171 and 229, and as directed to court-supervised sales rather than a mortgagee&#039;s or secured creditor&#039;s own realisation of security. Applying noscitur a sociis, the presumption against unexpressed change in existing law, and the legislative history, the sale was valid absent fraud, lack of bona fides, or recklessness.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 17:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (4) TMI 20 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97330</link>
      <description>A secured creditor&#039;s independent contractual power of sale over a company&#039;s assets, exercised by a receiver after commencement of winding up, was held not to require leave of the winding-up court under section 232(1) of the Indian Companies Act. The provision was construed narrowly, in context with sections 171 and 229, and as directed to court-supervised sales rather than a mortgagee&#039;s or secured creditor&#039;s own realisation of security. Applying noscitur a sociis, the presumption against unexpressed change in existing law, and the legislative history, the sale was valid absent fraud, lack of bona fides, or recklessness.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>