Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal challenging company winding up order dismissed for lack of prejudice.</h1> The court dismissed the appeal challenging the order of admission for winding up of a company under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The ... - Issues:Challenge against the order of admission under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956.Detailed Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal filed under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 against an order dated 6.7.93 by the Company Judge admitting a petition for winding up of a company under sections 433 and 434 of the Act. The appellant opposed the admission and interim relief sought by the respondent. The respondent, in turn, raised a preliminary objection regarding the tenability of the appeal, citing a previous order of the court in L.P.A. No. 11/80 where it was held that no appeal lies against an order admitting a petition for hearing. The appellant argued that the order in L.P.A. is not applicable to the present appeal under the Companies Act.The court considered the provisions of section 483 of the Companies Act, which allow appeals from any order made in the matter of winding up of a company. The preliminary objection regarding the tenability of the appeal was raised before the court on 23.6.95 and was reiterated during the proceedings. The Company Judge had admitted the petition based on a prima facie conclusion that the case favored the respondent, noting that the company had acknowledged the debt and failed to pay it after receiving a statutory notice. The court emphasized that the order of admission did not prejudice the appellant, as the merits of the case were yet to be examined.Ultimately, the court declined to interfere at the interlocutory stage, stating that the appeal lacked substance upon perusal of the order. The appeal was dismissed without any orders as to costs. The judgment highlighted that since the matter was still pending before the Company Judge for a final decision on the winding up of the company, the order of admission did not conclusively determine the outcome of the case and did not cause any prejudice to the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
