<?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>1999 (2) TMI 489 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104107</link>
    <description>A winding up petition based on inability to pay debts requires proof of commercial insolvency, not merely evidence that a debt is due or that cheques were dishonoured. The petitioner must place material before the Court showing that the company&#039;s contingent and prospective liabilities, taken together with its existing position, prevent payment of its debts. Here, the pleadings denied insolvency and the petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence of contingent and prospective liabilities; correspondence seeking balance sheets did not satisfy that burden. The petition was therefore not maintainable on the material presented and was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:17:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 489 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104107</link>
      <description>A winding up petition based on inability to pay debts requires proof of commercial insolvency, not merely evidence that a debt is due or that cheques were dishonoured. The petitioner must place material before the Court showing that the company&#039;s contingent and prospective liabilities, taken together with its existing position, prevent payment of its debts. Here, the pleadings denied insolvency and the petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence of contingent and prospective liabilities; correspondence seeking balance sheets did not satisfy that burden. The petition was therefore not maintainable on the material presented and was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>