<?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>1997 (10) TMI 324 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103949</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 protects implementation of a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme and does not extend to liabilities outside the scheme. Where the debt arose after the BIFR-sanctioned scheme, statutory protection did not bar proceedings against the company. On that basis, winding up proceedings based on subsequent indebtedness were maintainable, and BIFR consent was not required for their continuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:43:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 324 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103949</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 protects implementation of a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme and does not extend to liabilities outside the scheme. Where the debt arose after the BIFR-sanctioned scheme, statutory protection did not bar proceedings against the company. On that basis, winding up proceedings based on subsequent indebtedness were maintainable, and BIFR consent was not required for their continuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>