<?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>1974 (2) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99119</link>
    <description>A money claim by an official liquidator against a debtor of a company in liquidation may be presented as an application under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, rather than as a suit. Because the provision confers winding-up court jurisdiction over claims arising in the course of winding up and is intended to provide a speedy, inexpensive remedy, the court fee depends on the form actually adopted. A suit attracts ad valorem court fee under the Court Fees Act, 1870, but an application under the Companies Act falls under the fixed-fee provision in Schedule II. The claim was therefore correctly treated as an application with fixed court fee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:24:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (2) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99119</link>
      <description>A money claim by an official liquidator against a debtor of a company in liquidation may be presented as an application under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, rather than as a suit. Because the provision confers winding-up court jurisdiction over claims arising in the course of winding up and is intended to provide a speedy, inexpensive remedy, the court fee depends on the form actually adopted. A suit attracts ad valorem court fee under the Court Fees Act, 1870, but an application under the Companies Act falls under the fixed-fee provision in Schedule II. The claim was therefore correctly treated as an application with fixed court fee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>