<?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>1993 (8) TMI 237 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103178</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition founded on an alleged debt will not lie where the respondent raises a bona fide dispute on liability. The HC noted that objections concerning price variation, colour mismatch and quality defects were supported by correspondence predating the demand notice, showing the debt was not an undisputed liability. On that basis, the company court remedy under the Companies Act, 1956 was unavailable and the petition was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:25:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (8) TMI 237 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103178</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition founded on an alleged debt will not lie where the respondent raises a bona fide dispute on liability. The HC noted that objections concerning price variation, colour mismatch and quality defects were supported by correspondence predating the demand notice, showing the debt was not an undisputed liability. On that basis, the company court remedy under the Companies Act, 1956 was unavailable and the petition was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>