https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284689 In winding up proceedings following a BIFR reference, the Court treated the BIFR recommendation as the relevant commencement point for fraudulent preference scrutiny rather than the later winding-up order. Applying Section 531 of the Companies Act, it held that a consent decree obtained after the recommendation was a collusive fraudulent preference and could be declared illegal and void, especially where promoter-group status, unsupported interest benefits, and defective authority were shown. It further held that attachment of property does not by itself create a charge or secured interest, and that fraud-based challenge and refund claims were not time-barred where discovery occurred later and limitation was computed under Section 458A. en-us Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Dec 2019 10:17:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284689 In winding up proceedings following a BIFR reference, the Court treated the BIFR recommendation as the relevant commencement point for fraudulent preference scrutiny rather than the later winding-up order. Applying Section 531 of the Companies Act, it held that a consent decree obtained after the recommendation was a collusive fraudulent preference and could be declared illegal and void, especially where promoter-group status, unsupported interest benefits, and defective authority were shown. It further held that attachment of property does not by itself create a charge or secured interest, and that fraud-based challenge and refund claims were not time-barred where discovery occurred later and limitation was computed under Section 458A. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284689