<?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>1976 (4) TMI 164 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99662</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition may be advertised on the just and equitable ground where the pleaded facts, if proved, could justify dissolution and show a fair possibility of success on full investigation. The just and equitable ground is not confined by ejusdem generis to the other winding-up grounds and may cover a justifiable loss of confidence in management arising from lack of probity. The availability of oppression and mismanagement remedies, and the court&#039;s discretion under section 443(2), does not bar advertisement where the material prima facie suggests serious mismanagement, diversion of assets, cessation of the company&#039;s real business, and possible loss of substratum. The petition was therefore allowed to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:18:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (4) TMI 164 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99662</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition may be advertised on the just and equitable ground where the pleaded facts, if proved, could justify dissolution and show a fair possibility of success on full investigation. The just and equitable ground is not confined by ejusdem generis to the other winding-up grounds and may cover a justifiable loss of confidence in management arising from lack of probity. The availability of oppression and mismanagement remedies, and the court&#039;s discretion under section 443(2), does not bar advertisement where the material prima facie suggests serious mismanagement, diversion of assets, cessation of the company&#039;s real business, and possible loss of substratum. The petition was therefore allowed to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>