<?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 (6) TMI 557 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108721</link>
    <description>A winding up petition is not maintainable where the alleged debt is genuinely and substantially disputed. The High Court noted that the respondent denied liability for interest and service charges, disputed the authority and authenticity of the relied-upon letter, and asserted repayment of the principal. It also held that the dishonoured cheques and consolidated accounts required proof through evidence and supporting records, which could not be resolved in the Company Court&#039;s summary jurisdiction. Because the defence was bona fide and not illusory, the creditor was required to pursue ordinary civil remedies rather than winding up proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:38:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 557 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108721</link>
      <description>A winding up petition is not maintainable where the alleged debt is genuinely and substantially disputed. The High Court noted that the respondent denied liability for interest and service charges, disputed the authority and authenticity of the relied-upon letter, and asserted repayment of the principal. It also held that the dishonoured cheques and consolidated accounts required proof through evidence and supporting records, which could not be resolved in the Company Court&#039;s summary jurisdiction. Because the defence was bona fide and not illusory, the creditor was required to pursue ordinary civil remedies rather than winding up proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>