<?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>1957 (1) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97463</link>
    <description>Auction sales made under a sanctioned scheme and accepted before winding up were not void, and later conveyances merely perfected the earlier binding contract rather than constituting a fraudulent preference. By contrast, post-petition adjustments of shareholders&#039; call money against deposits or claims were unauthorised dispositions of company assets, offended pari passu treatment, and were void under the winding-up protection provision. A chairman&#039;s statement and a court order about tea gardens did not create a charge or security interest, and without the required registration no enforceable secured status could arise against the liquidator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:49:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (1) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97463</link>
      <description>Auction sales made under a sanctioned scheme and accepted before winding up were not void, and later conveyances merely perfected the earlier binding contract rather than constituting a fraudulent preference. By contrast, post-petition adjustments of shareholders&#039; call money against deposits or claims were unauthorised dispositions of company assets, offended pari passu treatment, and were void under the winding-up protection provision. A chairman&#039;s statement and a court order about tea gardens did not create a charge or security interest, and without the required registration no enforceable secured status could arise against the liquidator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>