https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98793 A saved jurisdiction-conferring notification under the earlier companies law continued to operate under the Companies Act, 1956 for petitions already filed before the later withdrawing notification took effect, so the District Judge remained competent to hear the winding-up petition. A company was also treated as unable to pay its debts where a creditor served the statutory demand and the company failed to pay within the prescribed period; a prior decree did not bar use of that statutory route, and the decree-holder remained a creditor. Proceedings could further continue in the firm's name despite the death of some partners. The winding-up order was therefore sustained. en-us Tue, 20 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:52:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98793 A saved jurisdiction-conferring notification under the earlier companies law continued to operate under the Companies Act, 1956 for petitions already filed before the later withdrawing notification took effect, so the District Judge remained competent to hear the winding-up petition. A company was also treated as unable to pay its debts where a creditor served the statutory demand and the company failed to pay within the prescribed period; a prior decree did not bar use of that statutory route, and the decree-holder remained a creditor. Proceedings could further continue in the firm's name despite the death of some partners. The winding-up order was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 20 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98793