<?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>1975 (8) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99235</link>
    <description>Pending a winding-up petition, the High Court may appoint a provisional liquidator with restricted powers and sanction continued operation of the company&#039;s business where that is necessary for beneficial winding up. The court accepted that running the plant could preserve the undertaking&#039;s value, prevent deterioration, generate funds toward liabilities, and better protect creditors and workmen than leaving the plant idle while compromise schemes were considered. It also held that the company&#039;s property could be safeguarded through court custody, supervision, insurance, inventory controls, compensation terms, and return conditions. The company was therefore permitted to continue as a working concern under judicial control pending the scheme petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:36:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (8) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99235</link>
      <description>Pending a winding-up petition, the High Court may appoint a provisional liquidator with restricted powers and sanction continued operation of the company&#039;s business where that is necessary for beneficial winding up. The court accepted that running the plant could preserve the undertaking&#039;s value, prevent deterioration, generate funds toward liabilities, and better protect creditors and workmen than leaving the plant idle while compromise schemes were considered. It also held that the company&#039;s property could be safeguarded through court custody, supervision, insurance, inventory controls, compensation terms, and return conditions. The company was therefore permitted to continue as a working concern under judicial control pending the scheme petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>