<?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>2019 (7) TMI 2029 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314505</link>
    <description>In liquidation-related recovery proceedings, entitlement of secured and unsecured creditors must be assessed by applying the statutory priorities under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Court noted that the competing claims could not be resolved merely by reference to the recovery certificate, and directed the Recovery Officer to consider both classes of creditors in accordance with law for provisional disbursement. For that purpose, the Officer was to proceed on the basis that deposit funds of Rs. 20 crores were available, but the inter se claims were not finally adjudicated on the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2024 08:23:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 2029 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314505</link>
      <description>In liquidation-related recovery proceedings, entitlement of secured and unsecured creditors must be assessed by applying the statutory priorities under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Court noted that the competing claims could not be resolved merely by reference to the recovery certificate, and directed the Recovery Officer to consider both classes of creditors in accordance with law for provisional disbursement. For that purpose, the Officer was to proceed on the basis that deposit funds of Rs. 20 crores were available, but the inter se claims were not finally adjudicated on the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>