<?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>1990 (9) TMI 262 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101974</link>
    <description>Winding-up under the Companies Act operates in a different field from closure permission under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, so prior permission to close an undertaking is not a precondition for a winding-up order. The company&#039;s persistent losses, liabilities exceeding assets, suspension of operations, inability to pay debts, special resolution for winding up, and no realistic prospect of revival established the statutory grounds for liquidation. The company&#039;s own financial position was treated as decisive, and the motive for seeking winding up was held to be irrelevant once the grounds were otherwise made out. The dismissal of the winding-up petition was set aside and the petition was directed to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:04:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 262 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101974</link>
      <description>Winding-up under the Companies Act operates in a different field from closure permission under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, so prior permission to close an undertaking is not a precondition for a winding-up order. The company&#039;s persistent losses, liabilities exceeding assets, suspension of operations, inability to pay debts, special resolution for winding up, and no realistic prospect of revival established the statutory grounds for liquidation. The company&#039;s own financial position was treated as decisive, and the motive for seeking winding up was held to be irrelevant once the grounds were otherwise made out. The dismissal of the winding-up petition was set aside and the petition was directed to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>