<?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>2010 (3) TMI 680 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113316</link>
    <description>Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 does not create an immediate right to earmark sale proceeds of secured assets for workmen&#039;s dues unless the company is in liquidation and those dues have been finally adjudicated. Here, no winding up order had been passed, the workmen&#039;s dues under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were still unfinalised, and the secured assets had already been sold under the SARFAESI Act with no established surplus for distribution. The prior objection based on non-impleadment of the company did not survive after service was attempted, but that procedural issue did not justify the substantive relief sought. Limited protective restraint was nevertheless granted against alienation or encumbrance of assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 680 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113316</link>
      <description>Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 does not create an immediate right to earmark sale proceeds of secured assets for workmen&#039;s dues unless the company is in liquidation and those dues have been finally adjudicated. Here, no winding up order had been passed, the workmen&#039;s dues under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were still unfinalised, and the secured assets had already been sold under the SARFAESI Act with no established surplus for distribution. The prior objection based on non-impleadment of the company did not survive after service was attempted, but that procedural issue did not justify the substantive relief sought. Limited protective restraint was nevertheless granted against alienation or encumbrance of assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>