<?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 (2) TMI 534 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110372</link>
    <description>Protection of small fixed depositors in a distressed non-banking finance company was given priority under the court-supervised repayment scheme, which was accepted with modifications to the distribution formula and phased repayment of smaller depositors. The protective stay on civil and criminal proceedings by secured creditors was maintained because separate enforcement would have frustrated the scheme and depleted the only practical source of repayment. A prima facie contempt case was found for filing proceedings in breach of stay orders, and contempt notice was directed. Sale of the company&#039;s office premises was permitted only with safeguards, including deposit of sale proceeds in a separate account for later adjustment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:52:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 534 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110372</link>
      <description>Protection of small fixed depositors in a distressed non-banking finance company was given priority under the court-supervised repayment scheme, which was accepted with modifications to the distribution formula and phased repayment of smaller depositors. The protective stay on civil and criminal proceedings by secured creditors was maintained because separate enforcement would have frustrated the scheme and depleted the only practical source of repayment. A prima facie contempt case was found for filing proceedings in breach of stay orders, and contempt notice was directed. Sale of the company&#039;s office premises was permitted only with safeguards, including deposit of sale proceeds in a separate account for later adjustment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>