<?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>2003 (7) TMI 488 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108249</link>
    <description>A non-banking financial company may be wound up under section 45MC of the RBI Act where statutory non-compliance, negative net owned funds, unpaid deposits on maturity, pending depositor claims, and a regulatory prohibition on accepting deposits show inability to carry on business and detriment to public interest and depositors. After winding up proceedings have commenced, an application for compromise or arrangement under section 391 of the Companies Act can be maintained only by the liquidator; an application by the company itself is not competent. The winding-up petition was therefore maintainable, while the separate application for convening meetings was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:16:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 488 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108249</link>
      <description>A non-banking financial company may be wound up under section 45MC of the RBI Act where statutory non-compliance, negative net owned funds, unpaid deposits on maturity, pending depositor claims, and a regulatory prohibition on accepting deposits show inability to carry on business and detriment to public interest and depositors. After winding up proceedings have commenced, an application for compromise or arrangement under section 391 of the Companies Act can be maintained only by the liquidator; an application by the company itself is not competent. The winding-up petition was therefore maintainable, while the separate application for convening meetings was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>