<?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>2005 (7) TMI 368 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110127</link>
    <description>On winding up, the official liquidator has a statutory duty to take custody of the company&#039;s assets, institute or defend proceedings, and assist the court in protecting the estate. In debt recovery proceedings, the liquidator must participate to safeguard the interests of the company, secured creditors and workmen, whose dues require pari passu treatment under the Companies Act, 1956 and section 19(19) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The objection to locus standi was treated as technical and did not defeat the request for directions. The liquidator was directed to effectively represent the company&#039;s interests in the pending proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:09:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 368 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110127</link>
      <description>On winding up, the official liquidator has a statutory duty to take custody of the company&#039;s assets, institute or defend proceedings, and assist the court in protecting the estate. In debt recovery proceedings, the liquidator must participate to safeguard the interests of the company, secured creditors and workmen, whose dues require pari passu treatment under the Companies Act, 1956 and section 19(19) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The objection to locus standi was treated as technical and did not defeat the request for directions. The liquidator was directed to effectively represent the company&#039;s interests in the pending proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110127</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>