<?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 (11) TMI 721 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109746</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition was not maintainable where the claimed professional fees were part of a running account, the balance was disputed, and the company had asked for accounts rather than refusing payment. The dispute was one for ordinary civil recovery, not corporate insolvency, and there was no material showing inability to pay, loss of substratum, or any basis for winding up on just and equitable grounds. The advocate also had no right to retain client briefs or case files as security for unpaid fees; the proper remedy was to sue for recovery, and the papers had to be returned so the client could continue the litigation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:43:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 721 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109746</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition was not maintainable where the claimed professional fees were part of a running account, the balance was disputed, and the company had asked for accounts rather than refusing payment. The dispute was one for ordinary civil recovery, not corporate insolvency, and there was no material showing inability to pay, loss of substratum, or any basis for winding up on just and equitable grounds. The advocate also had no right to retain client briefs or case files as security for unpaid fees; the proper remedy was to sue for recovery, and the papers had to be returned so the client could continue the litigation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>