<?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 (9) TMI 1054 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106812</link>
    <description>Pending recovery proceedings under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 do not by themselves oust the company court&#039;s jurisdiction to entertain a winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956. The winding-up remedy is distinct from mere debt recovery and may be admitted where the company&#039;s commercial inability to pay is shown and the debt is not bona fide disputed. On the facts discussed, the company had repeatedly acknowledged the liability, and objections about interest and short disbursement were treated as frivolous and vexatious. The petition was therefore maintainable and properly admitted, with consequential directions for advertisement and restraint on dealing with assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:41:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 1054 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106812</link>
      <description>Pending recovery proceedings under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 do not by themselves oust the company court&#039;s jurisdiction to entertain a winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956. The winding-up remedy is distinct from mere debt recovery and may be admitted where the company&#039;s commercial inability to pay is shown and the debt is not bona fide disputed. On the facts discussed, the company had repeatedly acknowledged the liability, and objections about interest and short disbursement were treated as frivolous and vexatious. The petition was therefore maintainable and properly admitted, with consequential directions for advertisement and restraint on dealing with assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>