https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299263 An equity of redemption remaining after a pledge was treated as an intangible right, not "goods" within the order and disposition clause, because that clause applies to visible or tangible property capable of possession and manual delivery. The second charge therefore was not avoided under Section 52(1)(c) of the Insolvency Act. A separate challenge based on relation back also failed: Section 57(c) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act protected the second charge as a transfer for valuable consideration made before adjudication, and there was no proof that the transferee had notice of insolvency or lacked bona fides. The appeal failed and the insolvency judgment was affirmed. en-us Mon, 24 Oct 1921 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:26:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299263 An equity of redemption remaining after a pledge was treated as an intangible right, not "goods" within the order and disposition clause, because that clause applies to visible or tangible property capable of possession and manual delivery. The second charge therefore was not avoided under Section 52(1)(c) of the Insolvency Act. A separate challenge based on relation back also failed: Section 57(c) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act protected the second charge as a transfer for valuable consideration made before adjudication, and there was no proof that the transferee had notice of insolvency or lacked bona fides. The appeal failed and the insolvency judgment was affirmed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 24 Oct 1921 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299263