<?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 (1) TMI 523 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108368</link>
    <description>A creditor&#039;s winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 was not entertained because the respondent-company had already been declared a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and a reference for winding up had been made under section 20(2). With final winding-up proceedings already pending, the creditor was required to establish its claim before the Official Liquidator along with other creditors. Continuing the separate petition would serve no useful purpose, while the creditor&#039;s right to prove the debt remained protected within the winding-up process. The petition was therefore disposed of without proceeding further.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:38:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 523 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108368</link>
      <description>A creditor&#039;s winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 was not entertained because the respondent-company had already been declared a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and a reference for winding up had been made under section 20(2). With final winding-up proceedings already pending, the creditor was required to establish its claim before the Official Liquidator along with other creditors. Continuing the separate petition would serve no useful purpose, while the creditor&#039;s right to prove the debt remained protected within the winding-up process. The petition was therefore disposed of without proceeding further.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>