<?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 (12) TMI 296 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111738</link>
    <description>Once a winding-up order is made, a secured creditor&#039;s unilateral right to realise mortgaged assets is controlled by the pari passu rights of workmen represented by the official liquidator and the supervisory jurisdiction of the Company Court. The earlier view that the secured creditor could stand outside the winding up and independently allocate or bear sale-related expenses was no longer sustainable after the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling. Applying that principle, the order permitting reimbursement of approved sale expenses and directing adjustment from the sale proceeds was upheld, and the appeal challenging those directions failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:32:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148754" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 296 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111738</link>
      <description>Once a winding-up order is made, a secured creditor&#039;s unilateral right to realise mortgaged assets is controlled by the pari passu rights of workmen represented by the official liquidator and the supervisory jurisdiction of the Company Court. The earlier view that the secured creditor could stand outside the winding up and independently allocate or bear sale-related expenses was no longer sustainable after the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling. Applying that principle, the order permitting reimbursement of approved sale expenses and directing adjustment from the sale proceeds was upheld, and the appeal challenging those directions failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>