<?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>2004 (8) TMI 418 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111219</link>
    <description>The court concluded that the respondent&#039;s counter-claim, supported by an arbitration award, constituted a bona fide dispute. Consequently, the winding up petition was deemed misconceived and dismissed. The court emphasized that winding up proceedings should not be used as an alternative to debt realization when a bona fide dispute exists. No orders as to costs were made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:38:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 418 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111219</link>
      <description>The court concluded that the respondent&#039;s counter-claim, supported by an arbitration award, constituted a bona fide dispute. Consequently, the winding up petition was deemed misconceived and dismissed. The court emphasized that winding up proceedings should not be used as an alternative to debt realization when a bona fide dispute exists. No orders as to costs were made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>