We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
<h1>Winding up order issued for Jokhodia Engineering Works due to debt default and bounced cheques</h1> The High Court of Allahabad ordered the winding up of Jokhodia Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. for failure to pay debts as per the Companies Act, 1956, after ... Winding up for inability to pay debts - service of statutory notice under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 - advertisement under rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - appointment of official liquidator under section 449Winding up for inability to pay debts - service of statutory notice under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 - advertisement under rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - appointment of official liquidator under section 449 - Respondent-company to be wound up on the ground of inability to pay its debt and official liquidator to be appointed. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner proved issuance of multiple cheques by the respondent which were returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and served a statutory notice under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. This Court earlier prima facie found the company unable to pay and directed payment of the claimed sum within a fixed period; the respondent failed to pay and did not obtain or procure any stay of that order. The petitioner thereafter complied with the requirement to publish the petition under rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 in the specified newspapers and in the Official Gazette, and no objection or reply was filed by the respondent or any other party. In these circumstances, the statutory preconditions for winding up on the ground of inability to pay debts were satisfied and the court proceeded to wind up the company and to appoint the official liquidator under the statutory provision enabling such appointment. [Paras 3, 4, 5]Jokhodia Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. ordered to be wound up; official liquidator appointed under section 449; petitioner to take steps under rule 113 and the office to comply with rules 109 and 111 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.Final Conclusion: Winding up petition allowed: respondent-company ordered to be wound up for inability to pay its debt; official liquidator appointed and procedural directions given for publication and compliance with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The High Court of Allahabad ordered the winding up of Jokhodia Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. for failing to pay debts as per the Companies Act, 1956. The company issued cheques that bounced due to insufficient funds. Despite a chance to pay the debt, the company did not comply, leading to the winding up order. The official liquidator was appointed for the process.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
