https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458481 Delhi HC held that a secured creditor could not unilaterally appropriate insurance proceeds relating to hypothecated goods when the borrower was a sick industrial company under SICA and BIFR proceedings were pending. The insurance money was treated as company property for the purposes of section 22(1), so any recovery or appropriation against those assets required prior BIFR consent. Section 22(3) was found inapplicable because the dispute did not concern suspension of a contract, settlement, award, or similar instrument under a specific BIFR declaration. The bank, as only one secured creditor, could not take the full amount to the exclusion of others or bypass the rehabilitation process; keeping the amount in a no-lien account was upheld. en-us Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Oct 2024 11:52:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458481 Delhi HC held that a secured creditor could not unilaterally appropriate insurance proceeds relating to hypothecated goods when the borrower was a sick industrial company under SICA and BIFR proceedings were pending. The insurance money was treated as company property for the purposes of section 22(1), so any recovery or appropriation against those assets required prior BIFR consent. Section 22(3) was found inapplicable because the dispute did not concern suspension of a contract, settlement, award, or similar instrument under a specific BIFR declaration. The bank, as only one secured creditor, could not take the full amount to the exclusion of others or bypass the rehabilitation process; keeping the amount in a no-lien account was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458481