<?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>1980 (10) TMI 155 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99834</link>
    <description>A company may be wound up on the just and equitable ground where its substratum has disappeared and its business has become impossible to carry on. The Court noted that the company had stopped business, sold its machinery and other movables, lost its leasehold premises, and had no assets available for rehabilitation or creditor satisfaction. It held that the absence of assets did not by itself prevent a winding-up order when the company no longer served the purpose for which it was incorporated. On those facts, the petition was maintainable and was allowed, and the company was ordered to be wound up with the provisional liquidator to act as liquidator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:56:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136886" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (10) TMI 155 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99834</link>
      <description>A company may be wound up on the just and equitable ground where its substratum has disappeared and its business has become impossible to carry on. The Court noted that the company had stopped business, sold its machinery and other movables, lost its leasehold premises, and had no assets available for rehabilitation or creditor satisfaction. It held that the absence of assets did not by itself prevent a winding-up order when the company no longer served the purpose for which it was incorporated. On those facts, the petition was maintainable and was allowed, and the company was ordered to be wound up with the provisional liquidator to act as liquidator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>