<?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>2015 (4) TMI 886 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259005</link>
    <description>A secured creditor&#039;s enhanced financial support was held to fall within an agreed pari-passu charge, allowing participation in distribution of sale proceeds despite objection under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court noted that the financial institutions had expressly consented to the pari-passu ranking for the bank&#039;s enhanced loan and working capital facilities, so they could not later use Section 48 to defeat that arrangement. The Official Liquidator was required to act fairly, recognise the recorded arrangement, and adjudicate the claim accordingly. The mortgage certificate was to be treated as valid to the extent recorded, and the secured claim was to be reconsidered and paid on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 886 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259005</link>
      <description>A secured creditor&#039;s enhanced financial support was held to fall within an agreed pari-passu charge, allowing participation in distribution of sale proceeds despite objection under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court noted that the financial institutions had expressly consented to the pari-passu ranking for the bank&#039;s enhanced loan and working capital facilities, so they could not later use Section 48 to defeat that arrangement. The Official Liquidator was required to act fairly, recognise the recorded arrangement, and adjudicate the claim accordingly. The mortgage certificate was to be treated as valid to the extent recorded, and the secured claim was to be reconsidered and paid on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>