<?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>1967 (9) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98451</link>
    <description>After the Central Government takes over management under section 18E(c) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, a winding-up petition cannot continue without governmental consent. The phrase &quot;no proceeding for the winding up&quot; was construed to cover the entire winding-up process, from filing of the petition until the winding-up order, so the statutory bar applies to pending proceedings as well as fresh ones. The object of the Act, namely rehabilitation of the industrial undertaking and avoidance of winding up unless necessary, supported that reading. A pending petition pursued without consent was therefore not maintainable, and the argument that a vested right protected continuation was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:55:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (9) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98451</link>
      <description>After the Central Government takes over management under section 18E(c) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, a winding-up petition cannot continue without governmental consent. The phrase &quot;no proceeding for the winding up&quot; was construed to cover the entire winding-up process, from filing of the petition until the winding-up order, so the statutory bar applies to pending proceedings as well as fresh ones. The object of the Act, namely rehabilitation of the industrial undertaking and avoidance of winding up unless necessary, supported that reading. A pending petition pursued without consent was therefore not maintainable, and the argument that a vested right protected continuation was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>