https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108486 After a winding-up order, the dominant issue was whether a State Financial Corporation (SFC) could unilaterally exercise its statutory power under s.29 of the SFC Act to take possession and sell secured assets without approaching the Company Court. The SC held that the 1985 amendments to the Companies Act, particularly ss.529 and 529A, create a pari passu charge for workmen's dues, represented by the Official Liquidator, which necessarily attracts Company Court supervision because the Official Liquidator acts only under the Court's directions. Consequently, an SFC's s.29 sale power is subject to safeguarding the workmen's pari passu charge, requiring consent of the Official Liquidator or directions/leave of the Company Court; unilateral realization is impermissible post-winding up. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 18:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108486 After a winding-up order, the dominant issue was whether a State Financial Corporation (SFC) could unilaterally exercise its statutory power under s.29 of the SFC Act to take possession and sell secured assets without approaching the Company Court. The SC held that the 1985 amendments to the Companies Act, particularly ss.529 and 529A, create a pari passu charge for workmen's dues, represented by the Official Liquidator, which necessarily attracts Company Court supervision because the Official Liquidator acts only under the Court's directions. Consequently, an SFC's s.29 sale power is subject to safeguarding the workmen's pari passu charge, requiring consent of the Official Liquidator or directions/leave of the Company Court; unilateral realization is impermissible post-winding up. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108486