<?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 (9) TMI 309 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110998</link>
    <description>The Court admitted the winding-up petition filed by former employees against the respondent-company for non-payment of terminal dues. It rejected the respondent&#039;s denial of liability, holding that the respondent assumed the liabilities of the merged company. The Court reset the limitation period for claiming dues based on an acknowledgment by the managing director. Employees were deemed &#039;creditors&#039; under the Companies Act, and the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. The Court appointed the Official Liquidator as Provisional Liquidator and granted time for the respondent to deposit the claimed amount, with further steps outlined if payment was not made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:14:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 309 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110998</link>
      <description>The Court admitted the winding-up petition filed by former employees against the respondent-company for non-payment of terminal dues. It rejected the respondent&#039;s denial of liability, holding that the respondent assumed the liabilities of the merged company. The Court reset the limitation period for claiming dues based on an acknowledgment by the managing director. Employees were deemed &#039;creditors&#039; under the Companies Act, and the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. The Court appointed the Official Liquidator as Provisional Liquidator and granted time for the respondent to deposit the claimed amount, with further steps outlined if payment was not made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>