<?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>2001 (7) TMI 1303 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197492</link>
    <description>The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 permits a Financial Corporation to take possession or management of a defaulting concern and to sell secured property under section 29. Once action under section 29 is taken, section 29(5) deems the Corporation to be the owner for proceedings by or against the concern, and section 32E(1)(c) restricts winding-up proceedings or appointment of a receiver without the Corporation&#039;s consent. On the stated facts, possession had been taken before the winding-up process advanced, the concern was not a running unit, and later restraint orders could not defeat the Corporation&#039;s prior statutory action or the sale made under it. The sale to the purchaser was therefore treated as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 1303 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197492</link>
      <description>The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 permits a Financial Corporation to take possession or management of a defaulting concern and to sell secured property under section 29. Once action under section 29 is taken, section 29(5) deems the Corporation to be the owner for proceedings by or against the concern, and section 32E(1)(c) restricts winding-up proceedings or appointment of a receiver without the Corporation&#039;s consent. On the stated facts, possession had been taken before the winding-up process advanced, the concern was not a running unit, and later restraint orders could not defeat the Corporation&#039;s prior statutory action or the sale made under it. The sale to the purchaser was therefore treated as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>