<?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 (6) TMI 767 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105451</link>
    <description>Section 45QA of the RBI Act applies only to repayment of deposits accepted by an NBFC, so directions issued under it could not extend to amounts due to consortium banks; the banks&#039; secured creditor remedies were preserved. An appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act lies only on a genuine question of law, so a challenge based on the commercial terms, viability, interest rate or payment mode of a repayment scheme was not maintainable. A stay of winding-up proceedings under section 45MC was unsustainable where it rested only on pending connected proceedings that no longer had bearing on the statutory grounds for winding up; the refusal to appoint a provisional liquidator remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:53:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 767 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105451</link>
      <description>Section 45QA of the RBI Act applies only to repayment of deposits accepted by an NBFC, so directions issued under it could not extend to amounts due to consortium banks; the banks&#039; secured creditor remedies were preserved. An appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act lies only on a genuine question of law, so a challenge based on the commercial terms, viability, interest rate or payment mode of a repayment scheme was not maintainable. A stay of winding-up proceedings under section 45MC was unsustainable where it rested only on pending connected proceedings that no longer had bearing on the statutory grounds for winding up; the refusal to appoint a provisional liquidator remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>