https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101175 A secured creditor who chooses to stand outside winding up cannot use section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 as a substitute for a civil action to enforce hypothecation and obtain possession of secured movables from the official liquidator. The HC held that questions of default, breach of hypothecation terms, and entitlement to possession require proof in ordinary proceedings, not in a summary company application. A further request for sale of the secured assets and priority payment was also declined because it could not be decided without considering the rights of all secured creditors and the statutory insolvency scheme. The creditor was left to work out its remedies in civil court or other appropriate proceedings. en-us Mon, 17 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:58:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101175 A secured creditor who chooses to stand outside winding up cannot use section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 as a substitute for a civil action to enforce hypothecation and obtain possession of secured movables from the official liquidator. The HC held that questions of default, breach of hypothecation terms, and entitlement to possession require proof in ordinary proceedings, not in a summary company application. A further request for sale of the secured assets and priority payment was also declined because it could not be decided without considering the rights of all secured creditors and the statutory insolvency scheme. The creditor was left to work out its remedies in civil court or other appropriate proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 17 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101175