<?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>1953 (12) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97271</link>
    <description>A creditor&#039;s winding up petition failed because the alleged statutory notice was not validly served at the company&#039;s registered office and was issued too late to satisfy the required interval before presentation of the petition. Without a valid statutory notice, the presumption of inability to pay debts could not arise. The company was also not shown to be unable to pay its debts, as the material indicated an admitted fund exceeding the alleged liabilities. The separate substratum argument likewise failed because the underlying facts remained disputed and the creditor&#039;s debt was not shown to be in jeopardy; winding up was therefore not warranted on equitable grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:29:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (12) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97271</link>
      <description>A creditor&#039;s winding up petition failed because the alleged statutory notice was not validly served at the company&#039;s registered office and was issued too late to satisfy the required interval before presentation of the petition. Without a valid statutory notice, the presumption of inability to pay debts could not arise. The company was also not shown to be unable to pay its debts, as the material indicated an admitted fund exceeding the alleged liabilities. The separate substratum argument likewise failed because the underlying facts remained disputed and the creditor&#039;s debt was not shown to be in jeopardy; winding up was therefore not warranted on equitable grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>