https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236884 Earlier company court orders were treated as creating an operative attachment over the suit property, and that attachment remained binding because it was never vacated or modified. Later review and revival efforts did not dislodge that position, so the property continued to be available for action by the Official Liquidator. Agreements executed in 2002 and 2003 could not override the prior attachment, and authorities dealing with earlier contractual rights were found inapplicable. The plea that the company representative lacked authority was also rejected, as the company had itself invited the Court to act on the undertaking and sought the benefit of the arrangement. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:08:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236884 Earlier company court orders were treated as creating an operative attachment over the suit property, and that attachment remained binding because it was never vacated or modified. Later review and revival efforts did not dislodge that position, so the property continued to be available for action by the Official Liquidator. Agreements executed in 2002 and 2003 could not override the prior attachment, and authorities dealing with earlier contractual rights were found inapplicable. The plea that the company representative lacked authority was also rejected, as the company had itself invited the Court to act on the undertaking and sought the benefit of the arrangement. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236884