<?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>1987 (11) TMI 308 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101536</link>
    <description>A prior hypothecation enforced by a financial corporation under the State Financial Corporations Act, where possession of the secured assets had already been taken before winding up, was treated as prevailing over the liquidation process. The absence of charge registration under the Companies Act did not defeat the earlier security interest because the hypothecation arose before incorporation as a company. The court also noted that the winding-up proceedings had been obtained without notice to the secured creditor, who had no notice of the stay or the liquidation. The secured creditor was therefore kept outside the liquidation and permitted to proceed against the hypothecated machinery and equipment, with limited directions for segregation and handover of those assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:28:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 308 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101536</link>
      <description>A prior hypothecation enforced by a financial corporation under the State Financial Corporations Act, where possession of the secured assets had already been taken before winding up, was treated as prevailing over the liquidation process. The absence of charge registration under the Companies Act did not defeat the earlier security interest because the hypothecation arose before incorporation as a company. The court also noted that the winding-up proceedings had been obtained without notice to the secured creditor, who had no notice of the stay or the liquidation. The secured creditor was therefore kept outside the liquidation and permitted to proceed against the hypothecated machinery and equipment, with limited directions for segregation and handover of those assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>