Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. Aggrieved by that, the appeal was filed by the appellant-Corporation, claiming that the State Financial Corporations Act had overriding effect in terms of Section 46B of the SFC Act, and therefore the order passed by the company court was sought to be set aside.

The Division Bench upheld the order of the Company Judge, having noticed that there is no conflict between the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act and the Companies Act and further in view of the provisions of Sections 529 and 529A of the Act, the official liquidator, representing the workmen, will have a pari passu charge over the assets of the company and the Corporation cannot dispose of the assets without permission of the court, where the winding up proceedings have already commenced and without association of the official liquidator, who represents the paripassu charge holder; the appeal was accordingly dismissed.