<?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>2001 (3) TMI 897 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105351</link>
    <description>A winding up petition is not barred merely because the creditor bank has already initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, since that tribunal can adjudicate and recover debts but cannot wind up a company. The Company Court retains jurisdiction to examine whether the company should be wound up for inability to pay debts. Admission of the petition does not require prior adjudication of liability; once statutory notice is served and the company fails to pay or secure the debt within the prescribed time, the statutory presumption of inability to pay debts arises. On the facts, there was no basis to displace that presumption, so admission was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:41:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 897 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105351</link>
      <description>A winding up petition is not barred merely because the creditor bank has already initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, since that tribunal can adjudicate and recover debts but cannot wind up a company. The Company Court retains jurisdiction to examine whether the company should be wound up for inability to pay debts. Admission of the petition does not require prior adjudication of liability; once statutory notice is served and the company fails to pay or secure the debt within the prescribed time, the statutory presumption of inability to pay debts arises. On the facts, there was no basis to displace that presumption, so admission was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>