<?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>2026 (5) TMI 445 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791243</link>
    <description>Post-commencement transfers of company property executed after commencement of winding up and without any basis for validation were treated as void under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act. The High Court affirmed that the appellant&#039;s sale deeds fell within that prohibition and could not be validated. Delay in filing was condoned, but the special leave petition was dismissed because no ground for interference was found in exercise of Article 136 jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 07:29:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 445 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791243</link>
      <description>Post-commencement transfers of company property executed after commencement of winding up and without any basis for validation were treated as void under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act. The High Court affirmed that the appellant&#039;s sale deeds fell within that prohibition and could not be validated. Delay in filing was condoned, but the special leave petition was dismissed because no ground for interference was found in exercise of Article 136 jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>