<?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 (10) TMI 1068 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106850</link>
    <description>Valid service of a statutory demand under the Companies Act was treated as satisfied where the notice was addressed to the company, delivered at its business address, and receipt was not effectively denied, making the objection about non-service at the registered office hyper-technical. However, a winding up petition based on non-payment of a debt must also contain a specific averment that the company is unable to pay its debts or is commercially insolvent; mere non-payment, refusal, or a disputed liability is not enough. On the pleadings as framed, the presumption of inability to pay was not attracted, and winding up was refused because the petition could not be used as a debt recovery mechanism.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:39:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 1068 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106850</link>
      <description>Valid service of a statutory demand under the Companies Act was treated as satisfied where the notice was addressed to the company, delivered at its business address, and receipt was not effectively denied, making the objection about non-service at the registered office hyper-technical. However, a winding up petition based on non-payment of a debt must also contain a specific averment that the company is unable to pay its debts or is commercially insolvent; mere non-payment, refusal, or a disputed liability is not enough. On the pleadings as framed, the presumption of inability to pay was not attracted, and winding up was refused because the petition could not be used as a debt recovery mechanism.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>