<?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 (1) TMI 1225 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106619</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only where the company satisfies the jurisdictional facts for BIFR reference, including status as an industrial company owning an industrial undertaking in a scheduled industry and meeting the prescribed registration requirement. The court treated these preconditions as jurisdictional facts; absent them, BIFR&#039;s registration of the reference is a nullity and may be ignored even in collateral proceedings. On the material before it, the company had not established the requisite industrial undertaking foundation, so the statutory stay was not available and the winding up proceedings were not stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:52:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 1225 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106619</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only where the company satisfies the jurisdictional facts for BIFR reference, including status as an industrial company owning an industrial undertaking in a scheduled industry and meeting the prescribed registration requirement. The court treated these preconditions as jurisdictional facts; absent them, BIFR&#039;s registration of the reference is a nullity and may be ignored even in collateral proceedings. On the material before it, the company had not established the requisite industrial undertaking foundation, so the statutory stay was not available and the winding up proceedings were not stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>