https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112791 In winding-up proceedings, an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1,050 days in pursuing the earlier company appeal was held not fit for condonation because no sufficient cause or bona fide explanation was shown. The Court also held that notice to the company in liquidation before directing publication of the admitted winding-up petition was not mandatory, as Rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 confers discretion on the Company Judge and does not impose an invariable notice requirement. A separate application seeking disclosure of dues and settlement of accounts was rejected because winding-up relief operates for the benefit of all creditors and contributories, not an individual settlement. en-us Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 May 2012 17:31:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112791 In winding-up proceedings, an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1,050 days in pursuing the earlier company appeal was held not fit for condonation because no sufficient cause or bona fide explanation was shown. The Court also held that notice to the company in liquidation before directing publication of the admitted winding-up petition was not mandatory, as Rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 confers discretion on the Company Judge and does not impose an invariable notice requirement. A separate application seeking disclosure of dues and settlement of accounts was rejected because winding-up relief operates for the benefit of all creditors and contributories, not an individual settlement. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112791