<?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>2006 (12) TMI 233 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111424</link>
    <description>In company liquidation, a claim could not be treated as a workmen&#039;s claim under section 529A unless the Official Liquidator first adjudicated the proof of debt under the prescribed procedure, recorded an order admitting or rejecting the claim, and filed the certified list in court. Payments made to employees in annexure B without such adjudication were therefore unauthorised, particularly where approval had been sought on a materially incorrect footing that those claims had already been accepted as workmen&#039;s claims. The irregular disbursement was liable to be refunded, with the claims to be reprocessed through proper adjudication and further inquiry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:56:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 233 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111424</link>
      <description>In company liquidation, a claim could not be treated as a workmen&#039;s claim under section 529A unless the Official Liquidator first adjudicated the proof of debt under the prescribed procedure, recorded an order admitting or rejecting the claim, and filed the certified list in court. Payments made to employees in annexure B without such adjudication were therefore unauthorised, particularly where approval had been sought on a materially incorrect footing that those claims had already been accepted as workmen&#039;s claims. The irregular disbursement was liable to be refunded, with the claims to be reprocessed through proper adjudication and further inquiry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>