<?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 (8) TMI 1234 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105489</link>
    <description>Section 442 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides a discretionary basis to stay suit proceedings, and that discretion must be exercised judicially on the facts of each case, not mechanically. Protection under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 may apply in appropriate cases, including some enforcement actions against guarantees, but it is intended for genuine sick-company cases. Where the applicant obtained credit after concealing earlier winding-up proceedings, the court held that relief was unavailable because the party had not approached with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. The stay application was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:08:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142527" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1234 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105489</link>
      <description>Section 442 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides a discretionary basis to stay suit proceedings, and that discretion must be exercised judicially on the facts of each case, not mechanically. Protection under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 may apply in appropriate cases, including some enforcement actions against guarantees, but it is intended for genuine sick-company cases. Where the applicant obtained credit after concealing earlier winding-up proceedings, the court held that relief was unavailable because the party had not approached with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. The stay application was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>