<?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>2002 (10) TMI 695 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108563</link>
    <description>An arbitration clause does not oust the Company Court&#039;s jurisdiction over a statutory winding-up petition, because winding up remains a special remedy under the Companies Act and section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not impliedly displace that power. The Court may still examine whether the defence is bona fide and whether the petition should proceed. Where the respondent&#039;s correspondence shows repeated admissions of liability and later objections appear as afterthoughts, the defence is treated as false, mala fide and not a substantial dispute. In that situation, the winding-up petition may be admitted and protective deposit conditions may be imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:21:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 695 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108563</link>
      <description>An arbitration clause does not oust the Company Court&#039;s jurisdiction over a statutory winding-up petition, because winding up remains a special remedy under the Companies Act and section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not impliedly displace that power. The Court may still examine whether the defence is bona fide and whether the petition should proceed. Where the respondent&#039;s correspondence shows repeated admissions of liability and later objections appear as afterthoughts, the defence is treated as false, mala fide and not a substantial dispute. In that situation, the winding-up petition may be admitted and protective deposit conditions may be imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>