<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (11) TMI 127 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400372</link>
    <description>Assets of a company in liquidation sold under a company-court sanctioned process were held not to carry pre-sale electricity dues where the sale deed limited the auction purchaser&#039;s liability to dues arising after confirmation of sale. The court distinguished authorities relied on by the electricity supplier because they did not involve a prior company-court process and a sale deed insulating the purchaser from past liabilities. As no contrary binding adjudication displaced that allocation of liability, the past dues remained claims against the company in liquidation and could not be fastened on the auction purchaser; the demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2020 12:32:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 127 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400372</link>
      <description>Assets of a company in liquidation sold under a company-court sanctioned process were held not to carry pre-sale electricity dues where the sale deed limited the auction purchaser&#039;s liability to dues arising after confirmation of sale. The court distinguished authorities relied on by the electricity supplier because they did not involve a prior company-court process and a sale deed insulating the purchaser from past liabilities. As no contrary binding adjudication displaced that allocation of liability, the past dues remained claims against the company in liquidation and could not be fastened on the auction purchaser; the demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>