1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court dismisses duplicate winding-up petition, directs petitioner to consolidate claims for efficiency & fairness.</h1> The court dismissed the current company petition seeking winding up of the respondent-company under section 433(c) of the Companies Act, as another ... Winding-up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up - Issues:Company petition filed under section 433(c) of the Companies Act seeking winding up of the respondent-company when another petition for winding up the same company is already admitted.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a company petition filed under section 433(c) of the Companies Act by the petitioner seeking the winding up of the respondent-company. The court notes that another petition, Company Petition No. 9 of 1996, for winding up the same company has already been entertained and admitted. In the previous petition, directions were given for advertising the petition and other consequential steps for creditors to submit their claims. The court emphasizes that when a company petition for winding up has been admitted and advertised, it represents all creditors with claims against the company, not just the petitioner. Therefore, there is no need to entertain a separate petition for the same relief. The petitioner is granted liberty to submit their grievances in the form of a claim in the existing Company Petition No. 9 of 1996. The court highlights that both petitions seek the same relief, and all creditors' claims will be examined in the ongoing petition. As a result, the current petition is dismissed with liberty given to the petitioner to present their claim in the existing winding-up petition.This judgment underscores the principle that once a company petition for winding up has been admitted and advertised, it represents all creditors with claims against the company. The court's decision to dismiss the current petition and allow the petitioner to submit their claim in the existing winding-up petition ensures a consolidated and efficient process for addressing all creditor claims. By granting liberty to the petitioner to present their grievances in the ongoing petition, the court streamlines the resolution of claims and avoids duplicative proceedings. The judgment reflects the court's commitment to upholding procedural fairness and maximizing the effectiveness of the winding-up process by consolidating creditor claims in a single petition for adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
