<?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 (7) TMI 498 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103713</link>
    <description>An unsecured creditor was permitted to withdraw deposited sale proceeds towards its admitted claim, but only on filing an affidavit and indemnity bond ensuring that the amount would remain subject to any later claims by unsecured creditors or employees lodged within one year. If such claims were subsequently found payable and the remaining sale proceeds were insufficient, the creditor would have to restore the amount wholly or partly. The Sales Committee was discharged for the time being because the remaining properties had not been fully sold, with liberty to recall it if further claims arose and unsold assets had to be liquidated. The applications were disposed of on that basis, while preserving the ability to address future admissible claims from remaining assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:34:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 498 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103713</link>
      <description>An unsecured creditor was permitted to withdraw deposited sale proceeds towards its admitted claim, but only on filing an affidavit and indemnity bond ensuring that the amount would remain subject to any later claims by unsecured creditors or employees lodged within one year. If such claims were subsequently found payable and the remaining sale proceeds were insufficient, the creditor would have to restore the amount wholly or partly. The Sales Committee was discharged for the time being because the remaining properties had not been fully sold, with liberty to recall it if further claims arose and unsold assets had to be liquidated. The applications were disposed of on that basis, while preserving the ability to address future admissible claims from remaining assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103713</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>