<?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>1986 (7) TMI 347 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101576</link>
    <description>Workmen&#039;s dues were recognised as enjoying priority and a pari passu position with secured creditors in the winding-up context, and the Court treated the workers as having a special stake in the proceedings. Because the company was closed, assets were deteriorating and the attached goods risked damage, exceptional circumstances justified discretionary relief despite the absence of a formal winding-up order and separate leave. The workers were therefore permitted to benefit from sale of the attached goods, with the Tahsildar authorised to conduct the sale and the proceeds kept secured under the control of the provisional liquidator to protect rival creditor interests.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:39:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 347 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101576</link>
      <description>Workmen&#039;s dues were recognised as enjoying priority and a pari passu position with secured creditors in the winding-up context, and the Court treated the workers as having a special stake in the proceedings. Because the company was closed, assets were deteriorating and the attached goods risked damage, exceptional circumstances justified discretionary relief despite the absence of a formal winding-up order and separate leave. The workers were therefore permitted to benefit from sale of the attached goods, with the Tahsildar authorised to conduct the sale and the proceeds kept secured under the control of the provisional liquidator to protect rival creditor interests.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>