<?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>2000 (9) TMI 992 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109022</link>
    <description>Amounts deducted from employees&#039; wages and payable to a co-operative credit society were considered in the context of section 50(3) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, which treats default in remittance as creating personal liability and recovery as arrears of land revenue with priority akin to wages in arrears. The competing claim was that the sums should fall within the liquidation priority framework for workmen&#039;s dues and secured creditors. Without finally determining the merits of either claim, the amount was ordered to be paid to the society during the appeal, but safeguarded by placement in fixed deposit, thereby declining interim retention in the liquidation process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:52:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 992 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109022</link>
      <description>Amounts deducted from employees&#039; wages and payable to a co-operative credit society were considered in the context of section 50(3) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, which treats default in remittance as creating personal liability and recovery as arrears of land revenue with priority akin to wages in arrears. The competing claim was that the sums should fall within the liquidation priority framework for workmen&#039;s dues and secured creditors. Without finally determining the merits of either claim, the amount was ordered to be paid to the society during the appeal, but safeguarded by placement in fixed deposit, thereby declining interim retention in the liquidation process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>