<?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>2009 (12) TMI 1013 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197333</link>
    <description>Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 permits validation of a post-winding-up transfer only where the arrangement is bona fide, benefits the company and its creditors, and does not prejudice secured creditors or breach existing judicial or statutory restraints. On the facts discussed, validation was refused because the proposed transfer was entered into despite injunction and status quo orders, pending DRT proceedings, SARFAESI restrictions, and an undisclosed secured creditor mortgage. The article also notes that interim restraint on asset and share transfers was declined on the stated facts, but disclosure of transfer deeds, registration details, and related particulars was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 16:57:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=502766" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 1013 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197333</link>
      <description>Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 permits validation of a post-winding-up transfer only where the arrangement is bona fide, benefits the company and its creditors, and does not prejudice secured creditors or breach existing judicial or statutory restraints. On the facts discussed, validation was refused because the proposed transfer was entered into despite injunction and status quo orders, pending DRT proceedings, SARFAESI restrictions, and an undisclosed secured creditor mortgage. The article also notes that interim restraint on asset and share transfers was declined on the stated facts, but disclosure of transfer deeds, registration details, and related particulars was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197333</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>