<?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>1951 (2) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97111</link>
    <description>Foreign creditors of an unregistered company being wound up in India are not excluded by nationality; the liquidation proceeds on the ordinary winding-up rules, and such creditors may prove their debts and rank pari passu with other creditors. The principal claim, however, required fresh consideration on subsistence of the debt and limitation, so the earlier allowance was set aside and remanded. The claims for interest and an alleged charge over the ore failed for want of proof of agreement and enforceable security, including registration of any charge. The lessor was entitled only to rent for the buildings up to surrender; the claim for distraint failed, and royalty depended on proof of working during the relevant year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:03:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (2) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97111</link>
      <description>Foreign creditors of an unregistered company being wound up in India are not excluded by nationality; the liquidation proceeds on the ordinary winding-up rules, and such creditors may prove their debts and rank pari passu with other creditors. The principal claim, however, required fresh consideration on subsistence of the debt and limitation, so the earlier allowance was set aside and remanded. The claims for interest and an alleged charge over the ore failed for want of proof of agreement and enforceable security, including registration of any charge. The lessor was entitled only to rent for the buildings up to surrender; the claim for distraint failed, and royalty depended on proof of working during the relevant year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>