<?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>1991 (1) TMI 347 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102010</link>
    <description>In winding-up proceedings, the secured creditor&#039;s power under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is subordinate to the overriding pari passu protection for workmen under section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. Because apportionment of sale proceeds may require determination of amounts due, interest, dates of reckoning, and distribution among secured creditors and workmen, the assets should be realised under court supervision rather than by unilateral action of the financial corporation. Leave to proceed under section 29 was refused, and the official liquidator was directed to conduct the sale under the Court&#039;s supervision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:38:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 347 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102010</link>
      <description>In winding-up proceedings, the secured creditor&#039;s power under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is subordinate to the overriding pari passu protection for workmen under section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. Because apportionment of sale proceeds may require determination of amounts due, interest, dates of reckoning, and distribution among secured creditors and workmen, the assets should be realised under court supervision rather than by unilateral action of the financial corporation. Leave to proceed under section 29 was refused, and the official liquidator was directed to conduct the sale under the Court&#039;s supervision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>