https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111563 Premises treated as security for a company in liquidation could not be shielded by a later claim of ownership where status quo and injunction orders had already restricted dealings with the property. Possession said to have been obtained after the subsisting court order did not establish a better title, and an asserted release of the premises was not proved on the record. A transaction made in breach of the court order could not confer valid title, and the applicant could not acquire a better interest than the transferor had at the relevant time. The applicant was therefore not entitled to the declaration or restraint sought, and the Official Liquidator could take possession of the entire property. en-us Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:14:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111563 Premises treated as security for a company in liquidation could not be shielded by a later claim of ownership where status quo and injunction orders had already restricted dealings with the property. Possession said to have been obtained after the subsisting court order did not establish a better title, and an asserted release of the premises was not proved on the record. A transaction made in breach of the court order could not confer valid title, and the applicant could not acquire a better interest than the transferor had at the relevant time. The applicant was therefore not entitled to the declaration or restraint sought, and the Official Liquidator could take possession of the entire property. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111563