<?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 (1) TMI 400 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110321</link>
    <description>A winding up petition is not meant to enforce a debt that is bona fide disputed, but where the principal sum is admitted and the real dispute concerns interest, the court may test whether the defence is genuine, substantial, and supported by prima facie facts. The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 imposes a statutory liability to pay delayed-payment interest to a small scale supplier, and that liability prevails over any contrary contractual term or other law. Section 6 is procedural and does not remove the substantive obligation. A dispute only on the quantum of interest does not by itself defeat the winding up remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:58:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147337" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 400 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110321</link>
      <description>A winding up petition is not meant to enforce a debt that is bona fide disputed, but where the principal sum is admitted and the real dispute concerns interest, the court may test whether the defence is genuine, substantial, and supported by prima facie facts. The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 imposes a statutory liability to pay delayed-payment interest to a small scale supplier, and that liability prevails over any contrary contractual term or other law. Section 6 is procedural and does not remove the substantive obligation. A dispute only on the quantum of interest does not by itself defeat the winding up remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>