<?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>2025 (12) TMI 244 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782704</link>
    <description>A disposition of company property made after commencement of winding up is void under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act unless the transferee strictly proves bona fide conduct, ordinary-course dealing, or benefit to the company or its creditors; on these facts, validation was refused because no such foundation was pleaded or proved and no consideration reached the company. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was unavailable because the pleadings did not establish consent, ostensible ownership, due diligence, or good faith, and the Official Liquidator was only a statutory custodian. Restitution was also denied outside the liquidation scheme, with any claim confined to the statutory priorities governing winding up.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 244 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782704</link>
      <description>A disposition of company property made after commencement of winding up is void under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act unless the transferee strictly proves bona fide conduct, ordinary-course dealing, or benefit to the company or its creditors; on these facts, validation was refused because no such foundation was pleaded or proved and no consideration reached the company. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was unavailable because the pleadings did not establish consent, ostensible ownership, due diligence, or good faith, and the Official Liquidator was only a statutory custodian. Restitution was also denied outside the liquidation scheme, with any claim confined to the statutory priorities governing winding up.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>