<?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>1998 (4) TMI 430 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103634</link>
    <description>A secured financial corporation that had already taken possession of a company&#039;s assets before a winding-up order could retain possession and proceed under its special statutory powers, because the overriding clause in the State Financial Corporations Act prevailed over inconsistent Companies Act provisions. However, workmen&#039;s dues and pari passu treatment with secured creditors in winding up remained protected, so sale and distribution had to respect those rights. The company&#039;s records were required to be handed to the official liquidator to enable statutory compliance. To balance these interests, possession was continued with the corporation, but subject to court supervision through a committee overseeing management, sale, and legal compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:14:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 430 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103634</link>
      <description>A secured financial corporation that had already taken possession of a company&#039;s assets before a winding-up order could retain possession and proceed under its special statutory powers, because the overriding clause in the State Financial Corporations Act prevailed over inconsistent Companies Act provisions. However, workmen&#039;s dues and pari passu treatment with secured creditors in winding up remained protected, so sale and distribution had to respect those rights. The company&#039;s records were required to be handed to the official liquidator to enable statutory compliance. To balance these interests, possession was continued with the corporation, but subject to court supervision through a committee overseeing management, sale, and legal compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>