https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98605 A mortgage suit for sale of charged properties was maintainable in the ordinary civil court because enforcement under Order 34 CPC fell outside the Companies Act's special company-court control. Non-registration of the company charge did not render the mortgage void against a purchaser who took the property subject to the security; the charge remained effective against the company while a going concern and was void only as against the liquidator and creditors. Ext. A-9 created both a specific charge over identified immovable properties and machinery and a floating charge over other assets, so sale of the specifically charged properties was competent. The suit was also within limitation, having been filed within twelve years from enforceability of the security. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:49:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98605 A mortgage suit for sale of charged properties was maintainable in the ordinary civil court because enforcement under Order 34 CPC fell outside the Companies Act's special company-court control. Non-registration of the company charge did not render the mortgage void against a purchaser who took the property subject to the security; the charge remained effective against the company while a going concern and was void only as against the liquidator and creditors. Ext. A-9 created both a specific charge over identified immovable properties and machinery and a floating charge over other assets, so sale of the specifically charged properties was competent. The suit was also within limitation, having been filed within twelve years from enforceability of the security. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 01 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98605