<?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 (5) TMI 334 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111158</link>
    <description>A secured creditor enforcing security under the recovery statutes may proceed during winding up without leave of the Company Court, because those special enactments override the general Companies Act regime, but enforcement remains subject to protection of workmen&#039;s dues. The Court held that the creditor could proceed against the secured land extent found on the record despite objections based on imperfect or partial registration of charge, as the special statute operated with overriding effect to that extent. It also held that movables in the Official Liquidator&#039;s custody could not be sold under the securitisation law unless they were shown to be covered by the security interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:26:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 334 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111158</link>
      <description>A secured creditor enforcing security under the recovery statutes may proceed during winding up without leave of the Company Court, because those special enactments override the general Companies Act regime, but enforcement remains subject to protection of workmen&#039;s dues. The Court held that the creditor could proceed against the secured land extent found on the record despite objections based on imperfect or partial registration of charge, as the special statute operated with overriding effect to that extent. It also held that movables in the Official Liquidator&#039;s custody could not be sold under the securitisation law unless they were shown to be covered by the security interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>