<?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>2012 (5) TMI 192 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213258</link>
    <description>A post-winding-up transfer of a flat made after appointment of the provisional liquidator was invalid because the ex-management lacked authority to deal with company assets. Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 permits validation only where the transaction was entered into in good faith, under compulsion of circumstances, in the ordinary course of trade, and for the company&#039;s benefit or preservation as a going concern; that test was not met here. The surrounding documents, delayed stamp duty, absence of registration, and other circumstances indicated collusion and an attempt to defeat creditors and the official liquidator. The agreement also failed the compulsory registration requirement relevant to part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186659" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 192 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213258</link>
      <description>A post-winding-up transfer of a flat made after appointment of the provisional liquidator was invalid because the ex-management lacked authority to deal with company assets. Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 permits validation only where the transaction was entered into in good faith, under compulsion of circumstances, in the ordinary course of trade, and for the company&#039;s benefit or preservation as a going concern; that test was not met here. The surrounding documents, delayed stamp duty, absence of registration, and other circumstances indicated collusion and an attempt to defeat creditors and the official liquidator. The agreement also failed the compulsory registration requirement relevant to part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>