<?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 1299 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106779</link>
    <description>During revival proceedings for a sick industrial company, directions requiring BIFR consent before any sale of machinery or other assets operated as a restraint on disposal of assets under section 22A, to prevent dissipation before a scheme was decided. The company could not sell its assets at that stage and had to obtain BIFR consent within the pending revival process. The amount lying with BIFR was permitted to be released to the workmen as an interim disbursement, while the character of the payment, whether wages or part of a voluntary retirement package, remained for BIFR to ermine. A separate disputed amount for 29 workmen was also kept back.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:30:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1299 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106779</link>
      <description>During revival proceedings for a sick industrial company, directions requiring BIFR consent before any sale of machinery or other assets operated as a restraint on disposal of assets under section 22A, to prevent dissipation before a scheme was decided. The company could not sell its assets at that stage and had to obtain BIFR consent within the pending revival process. The amount lying with BIFR was permitted to be released to the workmen as an interim disbursement, while the character of the payment, whether wages or part of a voluntary retirement package, remained for BIFR to ermine. A separate disputed amount for 29 workmen was also kept back.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>