Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)Section 529A in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 529 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 19 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951
A.P. State Financial Corporation vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000
26. We do not really see a conflict between Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and the Companies Act at all, since the rights under Section 29 were not intended to operate in the situation of winding up of a company. Even assuming to the contrary, if a conflict arises, then we respectfully reiterate the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in A.P. State Financial Corporation case (supra). This court pointed out therein that Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act cannot override the provisions of Section 529(1) and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956, inasmuch as the State Financial Corporation cannot exercise the right under Section 29 ignoring a pari passu charge of the workmen. It was observed in the judgment:
Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
International Coach Builders Ltd vs Karnataka State Financial Corpn on 5 March, 2003
In the later judgment reported as International Coach Builders Ltd. v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation , Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the aforesaid judgment and held that the rights of pari passu charge holders would run equally, temporally and potently, with the rights of the secured creditors. The official liquidator, as representative of the workmen, to enforce such pari passu charge would have the rights of representing the workmen equally with the rights of the secured creditors. It was held that the statutory right to sell the property under Section 29 of the Act has now to be exercised in tandem with the rights of pari passu charge in favour of the workmen created by the proviso to Section 529 of the Companies Act. It has been further held that the Official Liquidator is in the position of co-mortgagee. State Financial Corporations cannot act independently or by ignoring him for enforcing their security. The realization of the security can only be done by both the charge-holders joining the realising the security simultaneously. If a sale takes place, it can only be simultaneously for recovery of claim of all pari passu charge-holders and sale proceeds are required to be divided proportionately in the same proportion as their dues. The Court concluded to the following effect: