<?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>1965 (3) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98222</link>
    <description>Voluntary acceptance of dividend under a winding-up order can bar a later challenge where the benefit was taken under the very order attacked, the party had a real choice between inconsistent rights, and restitution would be impracticable because the company&#039;s business had ceased and the realised assets had already been distributed; on those facts, the appeal was not maintainable. The court also held that, on the materials including the banking regulator&#039;s report, liabilities exceeding realizable assets, and large unrecoverable advances, the bank was unable to pay its debts and the proposed scheme was unworkable; the winding-up order was therefore justified in law and on facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:59:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (3) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98222</link>
      <description>Voluntary acceptance of dividend under a winding-up order can bar a later challenge where the benefit was taken under the very order attacked, the party had a real choice between inconsistent rights, and restitution would be impracticable because the company&#039;s business had ceased and the realised assets had already been distributed; on those facts, the appeal was not maintainable. The court also held that, on the materials including the banking regulator&#039;s report, liabilities exceeding realizable assets, and large unrecoverable advances, the bank was unable to pay its debts and the proposed scheme was unworkable; the winding-up order was therefore justified in law and on facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>