<?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 (3) TMI 341 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111555</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a separate company, in a challenge against a recovery order for dues of Rs. 9,49,267 and interest of Rs. 3,23,802 from the debtor company. Despite common directors and a sister concern relationship, both companies are distinct legal entities under the Companies Act. The court criticized the respondent&#039;s advocate for repeated adjournments, leading to a final hearing where the defense to lift the corporate veil was deemed baseless. The recovery demand was quashed, and the petition was allowed with no costs imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:39:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 341 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111555</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a separate company, in a challenge against a recovery order for dues of Rs. 9,49,267 and interest of Rs. 3,23,802 from the debtor company. Despite common directors and a sister concern relationship, both companies are distinct legal entities under the Companies Act. The court criticized the respondent&#039;s advocate for repeated adjournments, leading to a final hearing where the defense to lift the corporate veil was deemed baseless. The recovery demand was quashed, and the petition was allowed with no costs imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>