<?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 (11) TMI 394 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112691</link>
    <description>A second winding-up petition concerning the same company is not maintainable once an earlier winding-up order has already been made and liquidation proceedings are pending. The proper course for any claimant is to pursue its claim within the existing liquidation before the Official Liquidator. The ruling bars parallel winding-up proceedings for the same company and confirms that remedies must be worked out in the pending liquidation process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 13:06:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 394 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112691</link>
      <description>A second winding-up petition concerning the same company is not maintainable once an earlier winding-up order has already been made and liquidation proceedings are pending. The proper course for any claimant is to pursue its claim within the existing liquidation before the Official Liquidator. The ruling bars parallel winding-up proceedings for the same company and confirms that remedies must be worked out in the pending liquidation process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>