<?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>1965 (4) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170184</link>
    <description>Section 45-O(1) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 was construed beneficially to protect a banking company in liquidation by excluding from limitation the period starting with presentation of the winding-up petition. Read with section 45-O(3), the provision was held to operate retrospectively, so it applied even where the petition pre-dated the amending Act and some claims had already become time-barred. The same exclusion also extended to execution proceedings for instalments falling due after the petition, because a narrower reading would defeat the statutory purpose of preserving the liquidator&#039;s recovery rights. The execution claim was therefore within time and the dismissal of execution was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2015 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (4) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170184</link>
      <description>Section 45-O(1) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 was construed beneficially to protect a banking company in liquidation by excluding from limitation the period starting with presentation of the winding-up petition. Read with section 45-O(3), the provision was held to operate retrospectively, so it applied even where the petition pre-dated the amending Act and some claims had already become time-barred. The same exclusion also extended to execution proceedings for instalments falling due after the petition, because a narrower reading would defeat the statutory purpose of preserving the liquidator&#039;s recovery rights. The execution claim was therefore within time and the dismissal of execution was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>