<?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>1976 (7) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99365</link>
    <description>The extended limitation under section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 applies only to proceedings instituted in the name of and on behalf of the company in winding up. Where the official liquidator recovered book debts under an arrangement for the benefit of a secured creditor, the recoveries were not made on behalf of the company, even if carried out through winding-up machinery. The court treated the source of authority, the accounting treatment, and the sanctioned arrangement as showing that the liquidator acted for the secured creditor outside the winding-up. The claim in the judge&#039;s summons was therefore barred by limitation, and the summons failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:09:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (7) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99365</link>
      <description>The extended limitation under section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 applies only to proceedings instituted in the name of and on behalf of the company in winding up. Where the official liquidator recovered book debts under an arrangement for the benefit of a secured creditor, the recoveries were not made on behalf of the company, even if carried out through winding-up machinery. The court treated the source of authority, the accounting treatment, and the sanctioned arrangement as showing that the liquidator acted for the secured creditor outside the winding-up. The claim in the judge&#039;s summons was therefore barred by limitation, and the summons failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99365</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>