<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354487</link>
    <description>Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 permits validation of post-commencement dispositions only where the transaction is honest, bona fide, in the ordinary course of business, and beneficial to the company and its creditors. The Court also treated creditor equality as a central consideration and looked for commercial necessity to keep the company operational. On the stated facts, the later mortgage and sale documents were inconsistent and undervalued, no security had been created when earlier loans were advanced, and the arrangements appeared to confer a preferential charge in favour of one creditor after winding up had materially advanced. Validation was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:07:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354487</link>
      <description>Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 permits validation of post-commencement dispositions only where the transaction is honest, bona fide, in the ordinary course of business, and beneficial to the company and its creditors. The Court also treated creditor equality as a central consideration and looked for commercial necessity to keep the company operational. On the stated facts, the later mortgage and sale documents were inconsistent and undervalued, no security had been created when earlier loans were advanced, and the arrangements appeared to confer a preferential charge in favour of one creditor after winding up had materially advanced. Validation was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>