<?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>2005 (3) TMI 467 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109990</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, and directed the High Court to refund the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs deposited by the appellant. The Court found no prima facie dispute as to the debt and no justification for admitting the winding-up petition against the company by the petitioning creditor/respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2014 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 467 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109990</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, and directed the High Court to refund the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs deposited by the appellant. The Court found no prima facie dispute as to the debt and no justification for admitting the winding-up petition against the company by the petitioning creditor/respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109990</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>