https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109352 Pendency of debt recovery proceedings did not bar a winding-up petition, because proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the Companies Act, 1956 were treated as distinct and independent. The respondent's claim that transfer of pledged shares discharged the loan required fuller enquiry, as the effect on beneficial ownership, voting rights and liability could not be decided at admission. Applying the prima facie case standard and the need for a bona fide substantial defence, the Court found the petitioner had shown debt and default, and the respondent's defence was insufficient to defeat admission. The winding-up petition was admitted to proceed. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:15:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109352 Pendency of debt recovery proceedings did not bar a winding-up petition, because proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the Companies Act, 1956 were treated as distinct and independent. The respondent's claim that transfer of pledged shares discharged the loan required fuller enquiry, as the effect on beneficial ownership, voting rights and liability could not be decided at admission. Applying the prima facie case standard and the need for a bona fide substantial defence, the Court found the petitioner had shown debt and default, and the respondent's defence was insufficient to defeat admission. The winding-up petition was admitted to proceed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109352