<?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>2017 (3) TMI 487 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339984</link>
    <description>Where a borrower company is in liquidation, Section 529A of the Companies Act gives overriding preferential treatment to workmen&#039;s dues and secured creditors ranking pari passu with them, so a secured creditor enforcing security under SARFAESI may realise the secured asset outside the winding up and take priority over the State&#039;s sales tax claim under the MVAT Act. The general position that SARFAESI does not itself create a first charge, and that State first-charge provisions ordinarily prevail, was distinguished on the facts of liquidation. The later insertion of Section 26-E of SARFAESI was noted as statutory recognition of secured creditor priority, and the recovery notices were held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 487 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339984</link>
      <description>Where a borrower company is in liquidation, Section 529A of the Companies Act gives overriding preferential treatment to workmen&#039;s dues and secured creditors ranking pari passu with them, so a secured creditor enforcing security under SARFAESI may realise the secured asset outside the winding up and take priority over the State&#039;s sales tax claim under the MVAT Act. The general position that SARFAESI does not itself create a first charge, and that State first-charge provisions ordinarily prevail, was distinguished on the facts of liquidation. The later insertion of Section 26-E of SARFAESI was noted as statutory recognition of secured creditor priority, and the recovery notices were held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>