<?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>1989 (9) TMI 290 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101702</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition under the Companies Act was barred once an inquiry had commenced under section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, because section 22(1) prohibited continuation of such proceedings without the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction&#039;s consent. As no consent was produced, the statutory suspension applied and the petition was not maintainable. The court therefore upheld dismissal of the winding-up petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:32:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 290 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101702</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition under the Companies Act was barred once an inquiry had commenced under section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, because section 22(1) prohibited continuation of such proceedings without the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction&#039;s consent. As no consent was produced, the statutory suspension applied and the petition was not maintainable. The court therefore upheld dismissal of the winding-up petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>