<?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 (10) TMI 410 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109457</link>
    <description>The court allowed the rectification of the missing affidavit in Form 21, citing the importance of providing the applicant with an opportunity to correct defects. The objection based on the arbitration clause was rejected, as the court held that only a court, not an arbitrator, can order the winding up of a company. The judge found the notice under section 434 valid, emphasizing that format discrepancies or equipment descriptions do not invalidate a petition. A prima facie case was found in favor of the petitioner, and the case was admitted for hearing with time granted for settlement discussions or a deposit by the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:59:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 410 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109457</link>
      <description>The court allowed the rectification of the missing affidavit in Form 21, citing the importance of providing the applicant with an opportunity to correct defects. The objection based on the arbitration clause was rejected, as the court held that only a court, not an arbitrator, can order the winding up of a company. The judge found the notice under section 434 valid, emphasizing that format discrepancies or equipment descriptions do not invalidate a petition. A prima facie case was found in favor of the petitioner, and the case was admitted for hearing with time granted for settlement discussions or a deposit by the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>