https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113405 A winding-up petition was challenged on the ground that the company had not shown sufficient cause or bona fide grounds for recalling or staying the winding-up and asset-sale orders; the application was found deficient, with no proper plea to set aside the orders and a belated ill-health explanation inconsistent with earlier efforts by other promoters and shareholders, so the orders were left undisturbed. The objection that winding-up could not continue because debt recovery remedies were available under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was also rejected, as winding-up was held to be a distinct collective process and not merely debt recovery. The two remedies were treated as operating in separate fields and capable of coexisting. en-us Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113405 A winding-up petition was challenged on the ground that the company had not shown sufficient cause or bona fide grounds for recalling or staying the winding-up and asset-sale orders; the application was found deficient, with no proper plea to set aside the orders and a belated ill-health explanation inconsistent with earlier efforts by other promoters and shareholders, so the orders were left undisturbed. The objection that winding-up could not continue because debt recovery remedies were available under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was also rejected, as winding-up was held to be a distinct collective process and not merely debt recovery. The two remedies were treated as operating in separate fields and capable of coexisting. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113405