https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109263 A separate winding up petition was treated as unnecessary and premature where the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction had already recommended winding up of the company under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Court found no justification for the petitioning bank to institute an independent winding up proceeding in the face of the existing recommendation, and considered the additional prayer made in the petition premature. The company petition was not entertained and was dismissed. en-us Fri, 21 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Apr 2012 11:33:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109263 A separate winding up petition was treated as unnecessary and premature where the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction had already recommended winding up of the company under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Court found no justification for the petitioning bank to institute an independent winding up proceeding in the face of the existing recommendation, and considered the additional prayer made in the petition premature. The company petition was not entertained and was dismissed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 21 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109263