<?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 (11) TMI 658 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108569</link>
    <description>A company formed to act as trustee lawfully pursues its objects by discharging trustee functions, including receipt of permitted reimbursement of expenses, and need not engage in commercial profit-making; therefore absence of profit or activity did not establish failure to commence business or inability to pay debts and sections 433(c)/434(1)(c) were not made out. The court found no substratum gone, deadlock, fraud in inception or other just-and-equitable grounds to wind up the company, and held that pursuing a concurrent substantive civil remedy for the same relief rendered the winding-up petition an abuse of process; petition dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:07:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 658 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108569</link>
      <description>A company formed to act as trustee lawfully pursues its objects by discharging trustee functions, including receipt of permitted reimbursement of expenses, and need not engage in commercial profit-making; therefore absence of profit or activity did not establish failure to commence business or inability to pay debts and sections 433(c)/434(1)(c) were not made out. The court found no substratum gone, deadlock, fraud in inception or other just-and-equitable grounds to wind up the company, and held that pursuing a concurrent substantive civil remedy for the same relief rendered the winding-up petition an abuse of process; petition dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>