https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110504 The High Court held that the winding-up petitions against the respondent company were maintainable despite the BIFR scheme, as the implementation period had ended. The court excluded the scheme period from the limitation period, allowing the petitions to proceed. The respondent was directed to deposit specified amounts towards the petitioners' dues, with the option for petitioners to file civil suits for further claims. Failure to file suits within three months would allow the respondent to withdraw the deposited amounts. The court's decisions were interim and would not prejudice the civil court proceedings. en-us Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:59:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110504 The High Court held that the winding-up petitions against the respondent company were maintainable despite the BIFR scheme, as the implementation period had ended. The court excluded the scheme period from the limitation period, allowing the petitions to proceed. The respondent was directed to deposit specified amounts towards the petitioners' dues, with the option for petitioners to file civil suits for further claims. Failure to file suits within three months would allow the respondent to withdraw the deposited amounts. The court's decisions were interim and would not prejudice the civil court proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110504