TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the winding up petition was maintainable when the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction had already recommended winding up of the respondent-company under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
Analysis: The petitioning bank chose to institute a separate winding up proceeding despite the existing recommendation of the Board for winding up. The Court found no justification for this course and treated the filing as unnecessary and avoidable. It also held that the further prayer made in the petition was premature at that stage.
Conclusion: The winding up petition was not entertained and was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to proceed with the company petition and brought the matter to an end by dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Board has already recommended winding up under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, a separate winding up petition may be treated as unnecessary and premature.
TaxTMI 
