<?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>2010 (6) TMI 320 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113449</link>
    <description>The Court partially allowed the application under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 5,93,700 along with interest at 6% per annum from 3-11-2006. The respondent&#039;s defense of having paid a substantial amount was not substantiated with concrete evidence, resulting in the Court rejecting their claim and ruling in favor of the Company-in-liquidation for the majority of the outstanding amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 13:18:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150455" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 320 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113449</link>
      <description>The Court partially allowed the application under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 5,93,700 along with interest at 6% per annum from 3-11-2006. The respondent&#039;s defense of having paid a substantial amount was not substantiated with concrete evidence, resulting in the Court rejecting their claim and ruling in favor of the Company-in-liquidation for the majority of the outstanding amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>