https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112669 Section 443(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as a limitation on, not a bar to, the court's discretion under section 433(f). The availability of alternative remedies under sections 397 and 398 does not by itself prevent a winding up petition on just and equitable grounds; the court considers whether that remedy is efficacious and whether resort to winding up is unreasonable. In a quasi-partnership company, irreconcilable deadlock between the only shareholders/directors, serious lack of probity, disputed management changes, and persistent statutory non-compliance were held sufficient to establish a prima facie case for admission of the petition. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2014 09:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112669 Section 443(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as a limitation on, not a bar to, the court's discretion under section 433(f). The availability of alternative remedies under sections 397 and 398 does not by itself prevent a winding up petition on just and equitable grounds; the court considers whether that remedy is efficacious and whether resort to winding up is unreasonable. In a quasi-partnership company, irreconcilable deadlock between the only shareholders/directors, serious lack of probity, disputed management changes, and persistent statutory non-compliance were held sufficient to establish a prima facie case for admission of the petition. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112669