<?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>1992 (7) TMI 248 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102272</link>
    <description>In winding up proceedings, a company&#039;s property remains its property, with the liquidator holding it under court supervision. A sale by the official liquidator is, unless the court orders otherwise, subject to confirmation by the court, and that confirmation serves to guard against irregularity, fraud and inadequate price. A direction to sell and execute the sale deed does not remove this statutory safeguard or prevent creditors and contributories from objecting to the manner of sale before confirmation. The text states that the appellant was entitled to be heard against confirmation, the company judge&#039;s view was erroneous, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on confirmation of the sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:57:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 248 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102272</link>
      <description>In winding up proceedings, a company&#039;s property remains its property, with the liquidator holding it under court supervision. A sale by the official liquidator is, unless the court orders otherwise, subject to confirmation by the court, and that confirmation serves to guard against irregularity, fraud and inadequate price. A direction to sell and execute the sale deed does not remove this statutory safeguard or prevent creditors and contributories from objecting to the manner of sale before confirmation. The text states that the appellant was entitled to be heard against confirmation, the company judge&#039;s view was erroneous, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on confirmation of the sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>