https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104150 A winding-up petition based on an unpaid trade debt was not maintainable where the claim had become time-barred and a separate civil suit on the same claim was already pending. The Court noted that part-payments extended limitation only up to 17 June 1988, so a petition filed in September 1992 relied on a stale and legally unrecoverable debt that could not be treated as a subsisting basis for liquidation. The pendency of the suit did not revive or preserve limitation for winding-up purposes. A mere recommendation by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction to wind up the company also did not justify creditor-initiated winding up while appeals against that recommendation remained pending. en-us Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:54:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104150 A winding-up petition based on an unpaid trade debt was not maintainable where the claim had become time-barred and a separate civil suit on the same claim was already pending. The Court noted that part-payments extended limitation only up to 17 June 1988, so a petition filed in September 1992 relied on a stale and legally unrecoverable debt that could not be treated as a subsisting basis for liquidation. The pendency of the suit did not revive or preserve limitation for winding-up purposes. A mere recommendation by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction to wind up the company also did not justify creditor-initiated winding up while appeals against that recommendation remained pending. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104150