https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101202 A decree-holder remains a creditor for winding-up purposes and may invoke section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 without first executing the arbitral award decree, because the demand-and-default route and unsatisfied execution are alternative, not exclusive, bases. Amendment of the petition and substitution of the petitioner did not create a new or invalid petition, and the pending intention to appeal against the decree did not suspend the creditor's right to proceed. Fresh court-fee was not required on the amended petition, and a short six-day delay in filing it was treated as a procedural default that did not justify dismissal. The company was found liable to be wound up. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:36:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101202 A decree-holder remains a creditor for winding-up purposes and may invoke section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 without first executing the arbitral award decree, because the demand-and-default route and unsatisfied execution are alternative, not exclusive, bases. Amendment of the petition and substitution of the petitioner did not create a new or invalid petition, and the pending intention to appeal against the decree did not suspend the creditor's right to proceed. Fresh court-fee was not required on the amended petition, and a short six-day delay in filing it was treated as a procedural default that did not justify dismissal. The company was found liable to be wound up. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 11 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101202