https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104938 The court rejected the application to recall the winding up order and the application for stay, emphasizing the importance of timely and substantiated evidence. The court ruled that without proof of a pending reference before the BIFR at the time of the winding up order, the grounds for setting aside the order were insufficient. The judgment highlighted that even if a reference had been made, it would not impact the decision. The Official Liquidator was heard on merits, ensuring fairness to all parties involved in the insolvency proceedings. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:10:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104938 The court rejected the application to recall the winding up order and the application for stay, emphasizing the importance of timely and substantiated evidence. The court ruled that without proof of a pending reference before the BIFR at the time of the winding up order, the grounds for setting aside the order were insufficient. The judgment highlighted that even if a reference had been made, it would not impact the decision. The Official Liquidator was heard on merits, ensuring fairness to all parties involved in the insolvency proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104938