<?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>1968 (8) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98609</link>
    <description>In winding up, a liquidator&#039;s request for directions to recover or retain company property in the court&#039;s custody is maintainable by application, not by suit with suit court-fee. A bank holding an English mortgage and hypothecation with contractual power of sale may retain and sell the secured assets without court intervention, but only to the extent the assets are actually covered by the securities; furniture outside the security must be returned to the liquidator. A security arrangement is not invalid merely because it creates a floating charge or leaves the company in possession, but any clause allowing the lender to take over management is contrary to section 293(1)(a) and is severable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:53:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (8) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98609</link>
      <description>In winding up, a liquidator&#039;s request for directions to recover or retain company property in the court&#039;s custody is maintainable by application, not by suit with suit court-fee. A bank holding an English mortgage and hypothecation with contractual power of sale may retain and sell the secured assets without court intervention, but only to the extent the assets are actually covered by the securities; furniture outside the security must be returned to the liquidator. A security arrangement is not invalid merely because it creates a floating charge or leaves the company in possession, but any clause allowing the lender to take over management is contrary to section 293(1)(a) and is severable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98609</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>