https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285385 A lien declared by an arbitral award over machinery and erected facilities could be enforced by the respondent in liquidation, and the corporate debtor's hypothecation in favour of bankers did not override that right because the respondent was not a party to the charge. The distinction between lien and hypothecation was material: a secured creditor is entitled to proceed under section 52 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and that right is not displaced by the liquidator's attempt to bring the asset into the general distribution waterfall under section 53 unless the security interest is relinquished. en-us Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2020 19:43:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285385 A lien declared by an arbitral award over machinery and erected facilities could be enforced by the respondent in liquidation, and the corporate debtor's hypothecation in favour of bankers did not override that right because the respondent was not a party to the charge. The distinction between lien and hypothecation was material: a secured creditor is entitled to proceed under section 52 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and that right is not displaced by the liquidator's attempt to bring the asset into the general distribution waterfall under section 53 unless the security interest is relinquished. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285385