https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769205 A prior consortium hypothecation over a corporate debtor's present and future movable assets retained priority over a later refinance charge, because the exclusion clause applied only to assets financed outside the consortium for new fixed assets and did not displace the earlier security. The later registration of charge with the Registrar of Companies did not, by itself, establish a first or exclusive charge or override the prior security interest. In liquidation, realisation under section 52 required proof of an enforceable secured interest, and the absence of consent or no-objection from the prior charge holder meant the respondent could not invoke that provision on the facts stated. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2025 08:31:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769205 A prior consortium hypothecation over a corporate debtor's present and future movable assets retained priority over a later refinance charge, because the exclusion clause applied only to assets financed outside the consortium for new fixed assets and did not displace the earlier security. The later registration of charge with the Registrar of Companies did not, by itself, establish a first or exclusive charge or override the prior security interest. In liquidation, realisation under section 52 required proof of an enforceable secured interest, and the absence of consent or no-objection from the prior charge holder meant the respondent could not invoke that provision on the facts stated. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769205