<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1940 (12) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96844</link>
    <description>Unpaid amounts by persons properly placed on a liquidator&#039;s list of contributories constitute calls arising ex lege on winding up and may be made the subject of calls by the liquidator enforceable under the Companies Act; this legal characterisation was affirmed. However, the court retained discretion under the enforcement provision to refuse immediate summary enforcement where respondents raise contested factual issues or defenses requiring inquiry. Consequently, the liquidator&#039;s entitlement to treat such liabilities as calls was recognised, but the court directed the liquidator to proceed by suit rather than awarding summary recovery in the presence of disputed facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 1940 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:25:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1940 (12) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96844</link>
      <description>Unpaid amounts by persons properly placed on a liquidator&#039;s list of contributories constitute calls arising ex lege on winding up and may be made the subject of calls by the liquidator enforceable under the Companies Act; this legal characterisation was affirmed. However, the court retained discretion under the enforcement provision to refuse immediate summary enforcement where respondents raise contested factual issues or defenses requiring inquiry. Consequently, the liquidator&#039;s entitlement to treat such liabilities as calls was recognised, but the court directed the liquidator to proceed by suit rather than awarding summary recovery in the presence of disputed facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 1940 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>