<?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>2004 (8) TMI 406 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110550</link>
    <description>After a company is ordered to be wound up, control and possession of its assets vest in the Official Liquidator, and anyone holding those assets must surrender them. A secured creditor cannot, at that stage, continue to retain possession or invoke section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act to enforce its remedy against the company&#039;s assets. An earlier direction for redelivery of attached goods was treated as conditional and did not lift the attachment. Competing claims based on prior charge or attachment were left open for later examination, but they did not prevent immediate delivery of the assets to the Official Liquidator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 406 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110550</link>
      <description>After a company is ordered to be wound up, control and possession of its assets vest in the Official Liquidator, and anyone holding those assets must surrender them. A secured creditor cannot, at that stage, continue to retain possession or invoke section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act to enforce its remedy against the company&#039;s assets. An earlier direction for redelivery of attached goods was treated as conditional and did not lift the attachment. Competing claims based on prior charge or attachment were left open for later examination, but they did not prevent immediate delivery of the assets to the Official Liquidator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110550</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>