https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198567 A State Financial Corporation's unilateral enforcement power under Section 29 was held unavailable once the debtor company was under winding up. Recovery against the guarantor was upheld as sustainable despite the principal debtor's liquidation, but realization of the mortgaged assets could not proceed without the official liquidator's consent or directions from the Company Court. The legal position was distinguished from cases where the debtor was not in liquidation, and prior recovery steps did not alter the effect of the winding-up order. The stated ratio is that secured asset enforcement after liquidation must remain subject to judicial supervision. en-us Wed, 16 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Feb 2018 10:36:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198567 A State Financial Corporation's unilateral enforcement power under Section 29 was held unavailable once the debtor company was under winding up. Recovery against the guarantor was upheld as sustainable despite the principal debtor's liquidation, but realization of the mortgaged assets could not proceed without the official liquidator's consent or directions from the Company Court. The legal position was distinguished from cases where the debtor was not in liquidation, and prior recovery steps did not alter the effect of the winding-up order. The stated ratio is that secured asset enforcement after liquidation must remain subject to judicial supervision. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 16 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198567