https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754979 In liquidation proceedings, the relevant date for adjudicating a secured debenture holder's claim was held to be the date of appointment of the provisional liquidator, not the date of final winding up, because the dispute concerned the operative date for determining priority of claims rather than valuation of debt. The Court distinguished the applicant's position from that of Bank of Baroda, which acted in dual capacities as secured creditor and debenture trustee, and found that the applicant could not equate its claim with the bank's secured-creditor claim. Rule 154 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was held inapplicable, and no error apparent was shown to justify review or modification of the earlier order. en-us Wed, 03 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:16:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754979 In liquidation proceedings, the relevant date for adjudicating a secured debenture holder's claim was held to be the date of appointment of the provisional liquidator, not the date of final winding up, because the dispute concerned the operative date for determining priority of claims rather than valuation of debt. The Court distinguished the applicant's position from that of Bank of Baroda, which acted in dual capacities as secured creditor and debenture trustee, and found that the applicant could not equate its claim with the bank's secured-creditor claim. Rule 154 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was held inapplicable, and no error apparent was shown to justify review or modification of the earlier order. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 03 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754979