https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97418 In winding up, a landlord's arrears claim does not gain priority by importing the landlord-priority rule from the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act through section 229 of the Indian Companies Act when section 230 already provides a specific priority scheme for company claims. The Companies Act's express for priority matters prevails, so insolvency rules cannot be used to displace or alter that statutory arrangement. A claim based on custodia legis also fails, because custody by law does not change the relative rights of competing claimants or create a landlord's priority. The landlord's priority claim was therefore rejected. en-us Mon, 02 Jul 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:05:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97418 In winding up, a landlord's arrears claim does not gain priority by importing the landlord-priority rule from the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act through section 229 of the Indian Companies Act when section 230 already provides a specific priority scheme for company claims. The Companies Act's express for priority matters prevails, so insolvency rules cannot be used to displace or alter that statutory arrangement. A claim based on custodia legis also fails, because custody by law does not change the relative rights of competing claimants or create a landlord's priority. The landlord's priority claim was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 02 Jul 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97418