<?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 (7) TMI 376 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110925</link>
    <description>Rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 gives the company judge discretion to issue notice to the company before directing advertisement of a winding-up petition, and that discretion should not be exercised routinely. Where the respondent is a running concern, ex parte admission and advertisement may prejudice goodwill and business, so notice to show cause is ordinarily the proper course, especially when maintainability and a bona fide dispute are in issue. An ex parte order admitting the petition and ordering advertisement was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the company and receiving its objections.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:11:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 376 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110925</link>
      <description>Rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 gives the company judge discretion to issue notice to the company before directing advertisement of a winding-up petition, and that discretion should not be exercised routinely. Where the respondent is a running concern, ex parte admission and advertisement may prejudice goodwill and business, so notice to show cause is ordinarily the proper course, especially when maintainability and a bona fide dispute are in issue. An ex parte order admitting the petition and ordering advertisement was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the company and receiving its objections.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>