https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366363 A consent decree recorded before winding up was analysed as a potential fraudulent preference under section 531 of the Companies Act, with the commencement date taken from the BIFR recommendation for the relevant enquiry period. The Court treated collusion, nondisclosure of material facts, and a promoter-linked interest as indicators that the decree was intended to prefer one creditor over others, and held it invalid and void. It also stated that attachment of property does not by itself create a charge or secured interest, so no priority arose from the attachment alone. The challenge and restitution claim were held not to be barred by limitation because fraud can be raised collaterally and knowledge arose only later. en-us Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Sep 2018 12:13:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366363 A consent decree recorded before winding up was analysed as a potential fraudulent preference under section 531 of the Companies Act, with the commencement date taken from the BIFR recommendation for the relevant enquiry period. The Court treated collusion, nondisclosure of material facts, and a promoter-linked interest as indicators that the decree was intended to prefer one creditor over others, and held it invalid and void. It also stated that attachment of property does not by itself create a charge or secured interest, so no priority arose from the attachment alone. The challenge and restitution claim were held not to be barred by limitation because fraud can be raised collaterally and knowledge arose only later. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366363