<?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>2008 (1) TMI 616 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112066</link>
    <description>A prima facie case for admission and advertisement of the winding up petition was established where the company&#039;s liability was supported by arbitral awards, non-compliance with payment directions, a statutory demand notice, and an admitted inability to discharge debts; the petition was therefore admitted for advertisement. The SARFAESI bar under section 15(3)(c) did not apply because it operates only when management of the borrower company is taken over, not when the secured creditor merely takes possession of secured assets. As the notices showed possession only, without takeover of management by appointment of directors or an administrator, the winding up proceedings were not precluded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 616 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112066</link>
      <description>A prima facie case for admission and advertisement of the winding up petition was established where the company&#039;s liability was supported by arbitral awards, non-compliance with payment directions, a statutory demand notice, and an admitted inability to discharge debts; the petition was therefore admitted for advertisement. The SARFAESI bar under section 15(3)(c) did not apply because it operates only when management of the borrower company is taken over, not when the secured creditor merely takes possession of secured assets. As the notices showed possession only, without takeover of management by appointment of directors or an administrator, the winding up proceedings were not precluded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>