1975 (4) TMI 60

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1954. The relevant facts are these: On December 31, 1953, the former management of the company executed in favour of the appellants and several other persons a debenture trust deed for rupees fifteen lakhs ; the immovable property of the company and its fixtures including machinery were given as security. On June 24, 1954, the management of the company executed an unattested deed of hypothecation to the tune of rupees ten lakhs in favour of the second appellant; the movables of the company were hypothecated under this deed. Some time in July, 1954, the debenture trustees proceeded to enforce the security and appointed the first appellant as receiver on their behalf. The receiver took possession of the entire property of the company and w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....single judge was also dismissed summarily but with certain observations. Referring to the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the debenture trust deed could not be challenged by the liquidators at this stage, the learned judges observed that it was not clear from the trial court's order whether a finding on that point was invited, and directed the district judge that if the question was raised he should allow the appellants to argue that the sale effected by the appellants could not be challenged in the liquidation proceedings. The High Court overruled the other contention that the application made by the liquidators asking the court to exercise its powers under section 195 was mala fide. The learned judges observed that on t....