https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416749 A challenge to a liquidator's classification of a creditor as unsecured was held maintainable because it concerned liquidation classification and priority, not rejection of the claim itself; the limitation period for appeals against claim rejection could not be imported to bar that remedy. On charge registration, the absence of registration under company law did not defeat secured status where the creditor's right to recover from mortgaged or hypothecated assets had crystallised through a Debt Recovery Tribunal order treated as akin to a decree. The liquidation classification as unsecured was therefore incorrect, and the liquidator was directed to classify the claim as secured. en-us Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jan 2022 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416749 A challenge to a liquidator's classification of a creditor as unsecured was held maintainable because it concerned liquidation classification and priority, not rejection of the claim itself; the limitation period for appeals against claim rejection could not be imported to bar that remedy. On charge registration, the absence of registration under company law did not defeat secured status where the creditor's right to recover from mortgaged or hypothecated assets had crystallised through a Debt Recovery Tribunal order treated as akin to a decree. The liquidation classification as unsecured was therefore incorrect, and the liquidator was directed to classify the claim as secured. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416749