<?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 (11) TMI 950 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106871</link>
    <description>Service of the statutory demand notice at the company&#039;s registered office is mandatory before a company can be deemed unable to pay its debts under the Companies Act, 1956, and notice addressed only to the managing director was insufficient. Pendency of proceedings before BIFR also barred winding-up proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 unless the requisite consent was obtained, and maintainability had to be tested on the filing date. The BIFR and AAIFR findings that the company had no viable rehabilitation proposal supported a separate winding-up order on the record before the court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:15:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 950 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106871</link>
      <description>Service of the statutory demand notice at the company&#039;s registered office is mandatory before a company can be deemed unable to pay its debts under the Companies Act, 1956, and notice addressed only to the managing director was insufficient. Pendency of proceedings before BIFR also barred winding-up proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 unless the requisite consent was obtained, and maintainability had to be tested on the filing date. The BIFR and AAIFR findings that the company had no viable rehabilitation proposal supported a separate winding-up order on the record before the court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>