<?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 (3) TMI 958 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106993</link>
    <description>Once winding up proceedings commence on presentation of the petition, any attachment, distress or execution against the company&#039;s estate without leave of the company court is void. The article states that post-commencement attachment of the company&#039;s properties and appointment of receivers under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act could not prevail over the Companies Act, and the conflicting State recovery mechanism had to yield to the central winding up law. It also notes that, because the company had not effectively denied the liabilities, appeared unable to meet its debts, and its management was disordered, the winding up petition was admitted and an official liquidator appointed as provisional liquidator to protect the assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:29:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 958 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106993</link>
      <description>Once winding up proceedings commence on presentation of the petition, any attachment, distress or execution against the company&#039;s estate without leave of the company court is void. The article states that post-commencement attachment of the company&#039;s properties and appointment of receivers under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act could not prevail over the Companies Act, and the conflicting State recovery mechanism had to yield to the central winding up law. It also notes that, because the company had not effectively denied the liabilities, appeared unable to meet its debts, and its management was disordered, the winding up petition was admitted and an official liquidator appointed as provisional liquidator to protect the assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>