https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110270 The court found the company's defense to be an afterthought and deemed the plea of non-service of notice as an attempt to mislead. The company failed to provide a legitimate dispute to resist the admission of the petition. Consequently, the court ruled that the company owed Rs. 6,51,652 to the petitioner. The winding up petition was admitted for this amount, with an interest rate of 6% per annum from acknowledgment date until payment. The petitioner was allowed to publish advertisements, with a returnable period of six weeks after publication, delayed by a fortnight from the judgment date. en-us Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:28:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110270 The court found the company's defense to be an afterthought and deemed the plea of non-service of notice as an attempt to mislead. The company failed to provide a legitimate dispute to resist the admission of the petition. Consequently, the court ruled that the company owed Rs. 6,51,652 to the petitioner. The winding up petition was admitted for this amount, with an interest rate of 6% per annum from acknowledgment date until payment. The petitioner was allowed to publish advertisements, with a returnable period of six weeks after publication, delayed by a fortnight from the judgment date. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110270