<?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>1962 (4) TMI 40 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97947</link>
    <description>The court ruled that the Union of India&#039;s claim for outstanding amounts against a company in liquidation did not qualify as a preferential claim under the Companies Act, 1956. Despite the Union of India&#039;s arguments based on legal precedents, the judge determined that the specific debts claimed did not align with the criteria outlined in the Act for preferential payments. As a result, the Union of India was entitled to receive the outstanding amount as an ordinary creditor, not as a preferential claimant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:38:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135004" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (4) TMI 40 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97947</link>
      <description>The court ruled that the Union of India&#039;s claim for outstanding amounts against a company in liquidation did not qualify as a preferential claim under the Companies Act, 1956. Despite the Union of India&#039;s arguments based on legal precedents, the judge determined that the specific debts claimed did not align with the criteria outlined in the Act for preferential payments. As a result, the Union of India was entitled to receive the outstanding amount as an ordinary creditor, not as a preferential claimant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97947</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>