tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post3488832278177352917..comments2023-09-15T16:21:31.980+05:30Comments on INDIAN CORPORATE LAW: A Careless Concern for Workmen’s Dues: Insolvency Code of 2016Umakanth Varottilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438677982004444359noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-44742386289171013462017-01-04T18:42:05.408+05:302017-01-04T18:42:05.408+05:30The option given to a secured creditor under S.52 ...The option given to a secured creditor under S.52 of the code is in the light of it's right to enforce it's security interest under SARFAESI, the Priority of claim under S.53 remains, the secured creditor may choose to enforce his rights against "such security interest" which is owed to him (S.52 of the code). He has now relinquished his right to claim any further dues from the liquidation process on the remaining assetes, isn't it?<br />The question of workman dues under S.52 wouldn't arise so far as the secured creditor enforces his rights with respect to "such security interest",would it?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-28937027060765027222017-01-04T18:04:04.601+05:302017-01-04T18:04:04.601+05:30http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-comme...http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/how-bankruptcy-code-treats-secured-creditors/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-9928180533472330912016-12-30T14:32:05.855+05:302016-12-30T14:32:05.855+05:30No, I strongly disagree with you. If Section 53...No, I strongly disagree with you. If Section 53's waterfall were to override the waterfall given under Section 52, what would be the point of differentiating between 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b)? If I were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, then the distribution of proceeds from liquidation assets would happen in exactly the same hierarchy under both the options. What then would be the difference between the secured creditor relinquishing his assets (52(1)(a)) and realizing it on his own (52(1)(b))?Mridul Godhanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-80733433796279669412016-12-28T20:47:13.624+05:302016-12-28T20:47:13.624+05:30Thank you Mridul. Whilst undoubtedly, Section 52(1...Thank you Mridul. Whilst undoubtedly, Section 52(1)(a) specifies that where the security has been relinquished, the same would be as per Section 53, the same however, in my mind, does not take away anything from the fact that Section 53 (having a non-obstante clause) provides that the proceeds from the sale of the liquidation assets would have to be distributed in accordance with Section 53. Are we saying that Section 53 overrides all other law, but not Section 52?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-89287729216530159362016-12-28T18:10:12.696+05:302016-12-28T18:10:12.696+05:30The non-obstante clause of Section 53 applies only...The non-obstante clause of Section 53 applies only to proceeds from the sale of liquidation assets when the secured creditor has relinquished his interest under Section 52(1)(a). The problematic aspect mentioned in this post arises from Section 52(1)(b) which applies when the secured creditor realises his security on his own.Mridul Godhanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-89624920151049762602016-12-28T13:01:02.480+05:302016-12-28T13:01:02.480+05:30Does not Section 53 start with a Non-obstante clau...Does not Section 53 start with a Non-obstante clause, which could be argued to imply that even for the matters covered under Section 52, the provisions of Section 53 would prevail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com