<?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 (10) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99161</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition based on deemed inability to pay must disclose enough particulars of the alleged debt and consideration to show prima facie that a debt exists, is due, and remained unpaid after statutory notice; a vague pleading may be vulnerable if the company does not appear, though the defect may lose significance where the claim is expressly admitted. The court also noted that, even where the debt is not genuinely disputed, winding up remains a discretionary remedy: the judge must consider whether supporting creditors&#039; wishes are based on reasonable grounds and whether liquidation would benefit creditors generally. On the facts described, the supporting creditors&#039; opposition, together with indications of commercial solvency, justified refusal of winding up.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:31:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (10) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99161</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition based on deemed inability to pay must disclose enough particulars of the alleged debt and consideration to show prima facie that a debt exists, is due, and remained unpaid after statutory notice; a vague pleading may be vulnerable if the company does not appear, though the defect may lose significance where the claim is expressly admitted. The court also noted that, even where the debt is not genuinely disputed, winding up remains a discretionary remedy: the judge must consider whether supporting creditors&#039; wishes are based on reasonable grounds and whether liquidation would benefit creditors generally. On the facts described, the supporting creditors&#039; opposition, together with indications of commercial solvency, justified refusal of winding up.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>