<?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>1989 (4) TMI 252 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101786</link>
    <description>On a winding-up order, a company&#039;s property is treated as being in the custody of the court under the Companies Act, and disputes concerning that property fall within the company court&#039;s jurisdiction. However, port authorities retain statutory power to sell goods in their custody after notice under the Major Port Trusts Act. Where imported goods of the company in liquidation were lying at the port, the appropriate course was to permit sale by the port authorities with the official liquidator present and overseeing the process, so that proper publicity and a fair price were secured and the sale remained subject to court confirmation. The sale proceeds were to be remitted to the liquidator, who could discharge the customs claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:33:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (4) TMI 252 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101786</link>
      <description>On a winding-up order, a company&#039;s property is treated as being in the custody of the court under the Companies Act, and disputes concerning that property fall within the company court&#039;s jurisdiction. However, port authorities retain statutory power to sell goods in their custody after notice under the Major Port Trusts Act. Where imported goods of the company in liquidation were lying at the port, the appropriate course was to permit sale by the port authorities with the official liquidator present and overseeing the process, so that proper publicity and a fair price were secured and the sale remained subject to court confirmation. The sale proceeds were to be remitted to the liquidator, who could discharge the customs claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>