<?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>2002 (9) TMI 558 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106489</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition may be admitted where the debt is admitted or otherwise clearly proved and the company fails to raise a genuine, substantial dispute. The Court found the defence to be sham because the liability was supported by an express admission and documentary material, including forwarding of C Forms, while the alleged defects in goods were not shown to negate the outstanding claim. It also applied the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, holding that delivery and payment are concurrent conditions and that acceptance of the goods, on the facts found, defeated the withholding defence. The petition was admitted and the company was directed to deposit the claimed amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:12:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 558 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106489</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition may be admitted where the debt is admitted or otherwise clearly proved and the company fails to raise a genuine, substantial dispute. The Court found the defence to be sham because the liability was supported by an express admission and documentary material, including forwarding of C Forms, while the alleged defects in goods were not shown to negate the outstanding claim. It also applied the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, holding that delivery and payment are concurrent conditions and that acceptance of the goods, on the facts found, defeated the withholding defence. The petition was admitted and the company was directed to deposit the claimed amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>