<?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 (1) TMI 1269 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180476</link>
    <description>An assignee of a secured creditor under the SARFAESI framework steps into the assignor&#039;s shoes for enforcement purposes in winding up proceedings and may be substituted as secured creditor. The assignee may take possession of the secured assets and proceed with sale under section 13 of the SARFAESI Act read with rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, provided the process remains transparent, the Official Liquidator is associated, and sale remains subject to Company Court supervision and approval to secure the best value. Objections by shareholders and guarantors to the assignment agreement and alleged underpricing were rejected, and no restraint on sale was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:50:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 1269 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180476</link>
      <description>An assignee of a secured creditor under the SARFAESI framework steps into the assignor&#039;s shoes for enforcement purposes in winding up proceedings and may be substituted as secured creditor. The assignee may take possession of the secured assets and proceed with sale under section 13 of the SARFAESI Act read with rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, provided the process remains transparent, the Official Liquidator is associated, and sale remains subject to Company Court supervision and approval to secure the best value. Objections by shareholders and guarantors to the assignment agreement and alleged underpricing were rejected, and no restraint on sale was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>