<?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>2009 (9) TMI 591 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113950</link>
    <description>A sale of assets in liquidation conducted under debt recovery proceedings could not override a subsisting company court order requiring association of the official liquidator and forbidding coercive steps against the assets. Because the assets remained in the liquidator&#039;s custody, valuation and inventory were prepared without notice to him, and the auction proceeded despite objections and deficient valuation, the sale was held illegal. Sale confirmation by the Recovery Officer was likewise unsustainable, as he could not confirm a sale inconsistent with the binding company court directions. The sale was set aside and a fresh auction was directed with proper valuation and the official liquidator&#039;s participation to protect creditors, workmen, and the liquidation estate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 591 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113950</link>
      <description>A sale of assets in liquidation conducted under debt recovery proceedings could not override a subsisting company court order requiring association of the official liquidator and forbidding coercive steps against the assets. Because the assets remained in the liquidator&#039;s custody, valuation and inventory were prepared without notice to him, and the auction proceeded despite objections and deficient valuation, the sale was held illegal. Sale confirmation by the Recovery Officer was likewise unsustainable, as he could not confirm a sale inconsistent with the binding company court directions. The sale was set aside and a fresh auction was directed with proper valuation and the official liquidator&#039;s participation to protect creditors, workmen, and the liquidation estate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>