<?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>1998 (10) TMI 440 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104391</link>
    <description>The court granted the respondent-company time until 30-11-1998 to pay the petitioner the sum of Rs. 16,27,422.15. If the respondent provided a letter from Sunstar Chemicals agreeing to adjust Rs. 3,50,000 against the amount payable, the respondent would need to pay Rs. 12,89,608 instead. The court clarified that this payment would not affect the petitioner&#039;s claim for interest. If the respondent failed to pay by the stipulated date, the court would proceed with the admission and advertisement of the winding-up petition. The court rejected the respondent&#039;s request for a stay of the order, noting that sufficient time had already been granted for further recourse.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:36:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 440 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104391</link>
      <description>The court granted the respondent-company time until 30-11-1998 to pay the petitioner the sum of Rs. 16,27,422.15. If the respondent provided a letter from Sunstar Chemicals agreeing to adjust Rs. 3,50,000 against the amount payable, the respondent would need to pay Rs. 12,89,608 instead. The court clarified that this payment would not affect the petitioner&#039;s claim for interest. If the respondent failed to pay by the stipulated date, the court would proceed with the admission and advertisement of the winding-up petition. The court rejected the respondent&#039;s request for a stay of the order, noting that sufficient time had already been granted for further recourse.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>