<?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 (3) TMI 577 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104594</link>
    <description>Statutory jurisdiction for a winding up petition under the Companies Act lies with the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the company&#039;s registered office is situated, and a contractual clause selecting another forum cannot override that jurisdiction. The limitation objection was treated as already decided against the company and having attained finality, so it did not bar the petition. The company&#039;s admitted principal debt remained unpaid despite statutory notice and opportunity, supporting a finding of inability to pay debts. On that basis, the jurisdiction and limitation objections failed, and winding up was ordered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:35:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 577 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104594</link>
      <description>Statutory jurisdiction for a winding up petition under the Companies Act lies with the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the company&#039;s registered office is situated, and a contractual clause selecting another forum cannot override that jurisdiction. The limitation objection was treated as already decided against the company and having attained finality, so it did not bar the petition. The company&#039;s admitted principal debt remained unpaid despite statutory notice and opportunity, supporting a finding of inability to pay debts. On that basis, the jurisdiction and limitation objections failed, and winding up was ordered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>