https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113113 A decree-holder remains a creditor for winding-up purposes, and a petition based on an unsatisfied money decree is maintainable where the company fails to show a genuine dispute over liability. The Court held that the decree crystallised the debt and that prior execution of the decree was not required before invoking section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. It also held that limitation was governed by the 12-year execution period under article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, not the three-year period for ordinary applications. The winding-up petition was therefore maintainable and the objections on dispute and limitation failed. en-us Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113113 A decree-holder remains a creditor for winding-up purposes, and a petition based on an unsatisfied money decree is maintainable where the company fails to show a genuine dispute over liability. The Court held that the decree crystallised the debt and that prior execution of the decree was not required before invoking section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. It also held that limitation was governed by the 12-year execution period under article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, not the three-year period for ordinary applications. The winding-up petition was therefore maintainable and the objections on dispute and limitation failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113113