https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103131 In company liquidation, execution against secured assets could continue with leave of the company court under section 446, and such leave was proper even though the petition did not expressly frame that relief, because it followed from the admitted facts and pleadings. A liquidator could not treat an ex parte decree as void so as to bar execution, since the decree-holder's claim continued to subsist and could be enforced according to law. Attachment of additional properties did not, by itself, destroy the decree-holder's secured creditor status in respect of mortgaged or hypothecated assets, though recovery beyond the secured property could affect the extent of that status and distribution of proceeds. en-us Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:14:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103131 In company liquidation, execution against secured assets could continue with leave of the company court under section 446, and such leave was proper even though the petition did not expressly frame that relief, because it followed from the admitted facts and pleadings. A liquidator could not treat an ex parte decree as void so as to bar execution, since the decree-holder's claim continued to subsist and could be enforced according to law. Attachment of additional properties did not, by itself, destroy the decree-holder's secured creditor status in respect of mortgaged or hypothecated assets, though recovery beyond the secured property could affect the extent of that status and distribution of proceeds. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103131