<?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>2003 (9) TMI 566 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109425</link>
    <description>Under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, BIFR and AAIFR must exercise their powers to advance rehabilitation, protect employment and productive assets, and treat winding up as a last resort. Where a revised rehabilitation scheme has stakeholder consent, the proposed sale of private corporate assets has been tested through advertisement, and sale proceeds with promoter contributions can settle secured dues and fund revival, insistence on a further public auction may defeat the statutory object. Rejection of the revised scheme and proposed land sale was unsustainable; the orders were set aside and the rehabilitation measures were directed to proceed under supervised timelines.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:24:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 566 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109425</link>
      <description>Under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, BIFR and AAIFR must exercise their powers to advance rehabilitation, protect employment and productive assets, and treat winding up as a last resort. Where a revised rehabilitation scheme has stakeholder consent, the proposed sale of private corporate assets has been tested through advertisement, and sale proceeds with promoter contributions can settle secured dues and fund revival, insistence on a further public auction may defeat the statutory object. Rejection of the revised scheme and proposed land sale was unsustainable; the orders were set aside and the rehabilitation measures were directed to proceed under supervised timelines.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>