<?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 (9) TMI 757 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108820</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition based on alleged inability to pay debts was held not maintainable where the respondent had already been found to be a sick industrial company and rehabilitation proceedings were pending before the statutory forum. The Court treated the rehabilitation framework as the governing process for addressing the petitioner&#039;s outstanding claim and found it unnecessary to examine whether the ingredients of section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 were otherwise established. As the proposed rehabilitation scheme was the appropriate statutory avenue, the petition was not entertained and was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:28:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 757 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108820</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition based on alleged inability to pay debts was held not maintainable where the respondent had already been found to be a sick industrial company and rehabilitation proceedings were pending before the statutory forum. The Court treated the rehabilitation framework as the governing process for addressing the petitioner&#039;s outstanding claim and found it unnecessary to examine whether the ingredients of section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 were otherwise established. As the proposed rehabilitation scheme was the appropriate statutory avenue, the petition was not entertained and was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108820</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>