https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198390 An application to validate a transfer made during winding up under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was governed, where no special period was prescribed, by the residuary limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963; filed nearly ten years after the cause arose, it was time-barred. The transferee was also not shown to be bona fide, as the surrounding circumstances suggested an attempt to overreach the injunction against alienation, so validation was refused. The mortgage in favour of the bank was upheld because the alleged non-deposit of original title deeds and description discrepancies were not proved to invalidate the charge. A recovery auction was liable to be set aside because the bid amount was not paid within the mandatory statutory schedule. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:46:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198390 An application to validate a transfer made during winding up under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was governed, where no special period was prescribed, by the residuary limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963; filed nearly ten years after the cause arose, it was time-barred. The transferee was also not shown to be bona fide, as the surrounding circumstances suggested an attempt to overreach the injunction against alienation, so validation was refused. The mortgage in favour of the bank was upheld because the alleged non-deposit of original title deeds and description discrepancies were not proved to invalidate the charge. A recovery auction was liable to be set aside because the bid amount was not paid within the mandatory statutory schedule. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198390