https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111990 Section 446(2)(d) of the Companies Act, 1956 is a jurisdictional provision and does not confer an independent power on the Company Court to priority among creditors in winding up; creditor ranking remains governed by sections 529, 529A and 530. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was not treated as displacing that statutory scheme, and provident fund dues were not given priority over the pari passu rights of workmen and secured creditors under section 529A. The deposit direction in favour of the provident fund authorities was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration within the Companies Act framework. en-us Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111990 Section 446(2)(d) of the Companies Act, 1956 is a jurisdictional provision and does not confer an independent power on the Company Court to priority among creditors in winding up; creditor ranking remains governed by sections 529, 529A and 530. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was not treated as displacing that statutory scheme, and provident fund dues were not given priority over the pari passu rights of workmen and secured creditors under section 529A. The deposit direction in favour of the provident fund authorities was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration within the Companies Act framework. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111990