<?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>1946 (4) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96934</link>
    <description>A company restored to the register and then ordered to be wound up by the Court is treated as being in a court-ordered winding up for the statutory duty to furnish information. The earlier voluntary liquidation does not control duties arising after restoration and the court&#039;s winding-up order. The Official Liquidator may also require former officers or liquidators to submit the required statement without a separate prior direction in every instance, because the statutory words &quot;subject to the direction of the Court&quot; do not impose that condition as a prerequisite. The court therefore upheld the demand for information.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 1946 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:10:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1946 (4) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96934</link>
      <description>A company restored to the register and then ordered to be wound up by the Court is treated as being in a court-ordered winding up for the statutory duty to furnish information. The earlier voluntary liquidation does not control duties arising after restoration and the court&#039;s winding-up order. The Official Liquidator may also require former officers or liquidators to submit the required statement without a separate prior direction in every instance, because the statutory words &quot;subject to the direction of the Court&quot; do not impose that condition as a prerequisite. The court therefore upheld the demand for information.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 1946 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>