<?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>2002 (4) TMI 871 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108973</link>
    <description>In winding up proceedings, a company&#039;s transfer of immovable property may be disregarded where the surrounding circumstances show it was not a bona fide arm&#039;s-length sale. The Court found the transaction hurried, unexplained, and arranged through management collusion rather than an open commercial process, so it was not in good faith or binding against the company. It also held that the property was sold well below market value, with the undervaluation indicating a device to siphon assets and defeat creditors&#039; claims. Prior approvals under tax or stamp law did not protect a fraudulent transfer. The sale was therefore treated as invalid and prejudicial to creditors.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 12:08:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 871 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108973</link>
      <description>In winding up proceedings, a company&#039;s transfer of immovable property may be disregarded where the surrounding circumstances show it was not a bona fide arm&#039;s-length sale. The Court found the transaction hurried, unexplained, and arranged through management collusion rather than an open commercial process, so it was not in good faith or binding against the company. It also held that the property was sold well below market value, with the undervaluation indicating a device to siphon assets and defeat creditors&#039; claims. Prior approvals under tax or stamp law did not protect a fraudulent transfer. The sale was therefore treated as invalid and prejudicial to creditors.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>