<?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 1302 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106784</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the winding-up petition filed by the petitioner union, citing that the union lacked the locus standi to file such a petition under the Companies Act. The court emphasized that the union should have pursued alternative remedies available under labor laws instead of resorting to the winding-up petition, which was deemed an abuse of the process of the Companies Act. The court found the claims made by the union to be baseless and vague, concluding that the company had bona fide disputed the alleged debts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:39:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1302 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106784</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the winding-up petition filed by the petitioner union, citing that the union lacked the locus standi to file such a petition under the Companies Act. The court emphasized that the union should have pursued alternative remedies available under labor laws instead of resorting to the winding-up petition, which was deemed an abuse of the process of the Companies Act. The court found the claims made by the union to be baseless and vague, concluding that the company had bona fide disputed the alleged debts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106784</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>