<?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>1975 (3) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99221</link>
    <description>In winding-up proceedings, mutual dealings between a company and its creditor permit set-off under the insolvency rules applied by section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. Separate chit fund accounts or fixed deposits did not destroy mutuality where reciprocal monetary claims existed between the same parties, and liquidation did not extinguish the ordinary right of set-off. The priority scheme under section 530 operated only after the balance was ascertained. The respondents were therefore entitled to adjust their dues against the official liquidator&#039;s claim and were liable only for the net balance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:11:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (3) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99221</link>
      <description>In winding-up proceedings, mutual dealings between a company and its creditor permit set-off under the insolvency rules applied by section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. Separate chit fund accounts or fixed deposits did not destroy mutuality where reciprocal monetary claims existed between the same parties, and liquidation did not extinguish the ordinary right of set-off. The priority scheme under section 530 operated only after the balance was ascertained. The respondents were therefore entitled to adjust their dues against the official liquidator&#039;s claim and were liable only for the net balance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>