<?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>2003 (7) TMI 701 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182076</link>
    <description>SC held that bonafide transferees for valuable consideration are protected under Section 55 proviso of Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 when shares are transferred after insolvency petition presentation but before adjudication order, without notice of the petition. The appellant purchased shares before adjudication order without knowledge of the insolvency petition, constituting bonafide transfer for valuable consideration. SC emphasized Sections 28 and 55 must be read harmoniously, serving different purposes. The legislature intentionally distinguished between petition presentation date and adjudication order date in the proviso. Appeal allowed, HC judgment set aside, trial court order restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:10:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 701 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182076</link>
      <description>SC held that bonafide transferees for valuable consideration are protected under Section 55 proviso of Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 when shares are transferred after insolvency petition presentation but before adjudication order, without notice of the petition. The appellant purchased shares before adjudication order without knowledge of the insolvency petition, constituting bonafide transfer for valuable consideration. SC emphasized Sections 28 and 55 must be read harmoniously, serving different purposes. The legislature intentionally distinguished between petition presentation date and adjudication order date in the proviso. Appeal allowed, HC judgment set aside, trial court order restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>