<?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>1999 (3) TMI 542 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105195</link>
    <description>Leave to sue against a company in liquidation and the auction purchaser was liable to be recalled where the claimant had suppressed material facts, including earlier applications, prior orders, and the limited liberty previously granted. The claimant had not challenged orders that had already crystallised the auction purchaser&#039;s rights, and the attempted claims for repossession of machinery and invalidation of the mortgage were outside the earlier reserved liberty. The claim was also found to be time-barred on the facts disclosed. The effect was that the leave was withdrawn, and the claimant was confined to pursuing any remedy as an unsecured creditor before the Official Liquidator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142233" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 542 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105195</link>
      <description>Leave to sue against a company in liquidation and the auction purchaser was liable to be recalled where the claimant had suppressed material facts, including earlier applications, prior orders, and the limited liberty previously granted. The claimant had not challenged orders that had already crystallised the auction purchaser&#039;s rights, and the attempted claims for repossession of machinery and invalidation of the mortgage were outside the earlier reserved liberty. The claim was also found to be time-barred on the facts disclosed. The effect was that the leave was withdrawn, and the claimant was confined to pursuing any remedy as an unsecured creditor before the Official Liquidator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105195</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>