Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2014 (2) TMI 13 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Winding-up petition maintainable on admitted debt despite foreign decree, merger arguments, and alleged lack of bona fide dispute A winding-up petition was treated as founded on a Patronage Letter and admitted correspondence, not on enforcement of a foreign Turin decree. The foreign ...
                      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.

                          Winding-up petition maintainable on admitted debt despite foreign decree, merger arguments, and alleged lack of bona fide dispute

                          A winding-up petition was treated as founded on a Patronage Letter and admitted correspondence, not on enforcement of a foreign Turin decree. The foreign decree did not extinguish the original cause of action, merger doctrine was not applied to bar the petition, and the exclusive Turin jurisdiction clause was held inapplicable because winding-up lies before the Company Court. The Court also found that limitation, alleged FEMA breach, parallel proceedings, and commercial solvency did not establish a bona fide dispute where the debt was admitted and restructuring requests had been made before inconsistent defences were raised. A limited opportunity to deposit the claimed amount was granted to avoid admission.




                          Issues: (i) Whether the winding-up petition was founded on the Patronage Letter and the respondent's admissions, or on the foreign decree of the Turin Court, and whether the foreign decree, merger doctrine, or exclusive jurisdiction clause barred the petition. (ii) Whether the defences of limitation, alleged FEMA violation, collusive parallel proceedings, and commercial solvency created a bona fide dispute so as to defeat the petition.

                          Issue (i): Whether the winding-up petition was founded on the Patronage Letter and the respondent's admissions, or on the foreign decree of the Turin Court, and whether the foreign decree, merger doctrine, or exclusive jurisdiction clause barred the petition.

                          Analysis: The petition and statutory notice were read as proceeding on the Patronage Letter and the admitted correspondence, not on enforcement of the Turin decree. The liability under the Patronage Letter was treated as the foundation of the creditor's claim, and the foreign decree was held not to extinguish the original cause of action in this context. The Court held that a creditor does not cease to be a creditor merely because a foreign judgment has been obtained, and the doctrine of merger was not applied to exclude the winding-up remedy. The jurisdiction clause in favour of Turin was held inapplicable to a company petition, because the winding-up jurisdiction lay only with the Company Court.

                          Conclusion: The petition was maintainable on the basis of the Patronage Letter and the admissions, and was not barred by the foreign decree, merger doctrine, or the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

                          Issue (ii): Whether the defences of limitation, alleged FEMA violation, collusive parallel proceedings, and commercial solvency created a bona fide dispute so as to defeat the petition.

                          Analysis: The Court found that the petition was within limitation, as the respondent had reiterated the subsistence of the guarantee arrangement shortly before filing. The allegation that the Patronage Letter violated FEMA was not substantiated and was eventually not pressed with specificity. The Calcutta proceedings were treated as not affecting the petitioner's independent right to seek winding up and were characterised as lacking bona fides on the material before the Court. Commercial solvency was held not to be a standalone defence where the debt was admitted and the respondent had repeatedly sought restructuring and time for payment before raising inconsistent defences after service of notice.

                          Conclusion: The defences did not disclose a bona fide dispute sufficient to repel the winding-up petition.

                          Final Conclusion: The Court held that the petitioner had made out a maintainable winding-up claim based on the Patronage Letter and admissions, but granted the respondent a limited opportunity to avoid admission by depositing the claimed amount within the stipulated time, failing which the company petition would stand admitted.

                          Ratio Decidendi: A foreign decree does not necessarily efface the original cause of action for purposes of a winding-up petition, and a creditor with an admitted debt may invoke winding-up jurisdiction notwithstanding parallel enforcement proceedings, if the defence raised is not bona fide.


                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found