https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98361 The Companies Act was treated as containing a self-contained priority scheme for insolvent companies, so the State Government could not claim broader governmental priority under the insolvency law. Section 529(1) was construed narrowly as governing proof of debts and the relative position of secured and unsecured creditors, not as importing the insolvency statute's priority rules. The interpretation preserving consistency with the Companies Act's preferential-payment framework was preferred, and the general Crown priority under insolvency law was held inapplicable. en-us Tue, 25 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:55:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98361 The Companies Act was treated as containing a self-contained priority scheme for insolvent companies, so the State Government could not claim broader governmental priority under the insolvency law. Section 529(1) was construed narrowly as governing proof of debts and the relative position of secured and unsecured creditors, not as importing the insolvency statute's priority rules. The interpretation preserving consistency with the Companies Act's preferential-payment framework was preferred, and the general Crown priority under insolvency law was held inapplicable. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 25 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98361