<?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>2006 (4) TMI 251 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110790</link>
    <description>Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 excludes only the period from commencement of winding up to the winding up order and one year thereafter, so it cannot revive a debt already barred before winding up began. The claimed liability here arose from an old ledger entry and the ordinary limitation period had expired before the winding up process, making the recovery claim time-barred. The debt was also not proved: the record lacked supporting vouchers, invoices, purchase orders, or reliable evidence that the books were kept in the regular course of business, and there was no dependable acknowledgment by the respondent. The liquidator&#039;s claim therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:15:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 251 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110790</link>
      <description>Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 excludes only the period from commencement of winding up to the winding up order and one year thereafter, so it cannot revive a debt already barred before winding up began. The claimed liability here arose from an old ledger entry and the ordinary limitation period had expired before the winding up process, making the recovery claim time-barred. The debt was also not proved: the record lacked supporting vouchers, invoices, purchase orders, or reliable evidence that the books were kept in the regular course of business, and there was no dependable acknowledgment by the respondent. The liquidator&#039;s claim therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>