<?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 526 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108371</link>
    <description>A creditor&#039;s separate winding-up petition under the Companies Act was not entertained where the same company was already declared sick and a final winding-up reference under the sick industrial companies law was pending. The court reasoned that, once final winding-up proceedings were already in motion, there was no practical basis to proceed independently with the creditor&#039;s petition because the creditor must establish its claim in the collective winding-up process before the Official Liquidator alongside other creditors. The creditor&#039;s claim remained protected and could be proved in those proceedings in accordance with the Companies Act, so the separate petition was disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 526 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108371</link>
      <description>A creditor&#039;s separate winding-up petition under the Companies Act was not entertained where the same company was already declared sick and a final winding-up reference under the sick industrial companies law was pending. The court reasoned that, once final winding-up proceedings were already in motion, there was no practical basis to proceed independently with the creditor&#039;s petition because the creditor must establish its claim in the collective winding-up process before the Official Liquidator alongside other creditors. The creditor&#039;s claim remained protected and could be proved in those proceedings in accordance with the Companies Act, so the separate petition was disposed of.</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=108371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>