<?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>2009 (9) TMI 578 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113915</link>
    <description>A winding up petition for non-payment of debt will not be admitted where the claimed debt is not presently enforceable, the petition does not contain the mandatory averments showing inability to pay, and the company raises a bona fide dispute with substance. Here, the civil decree supporting the debt was under appeal and treated as unenforceable for the present purpose, so winding up could not be used as a substitute for the appellate or execution process. The petition also failed to plead the required facts on assets, liabilities, and insolvency. The respondent&#039;s defence was supported by contractual disputes and was not shown to be illusory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2014 15:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 578 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113915</link>
      <description>A winding up petition for non-payment of debt will not be admitted where the claimed debt is not presently enforceable, the petition does not contain the mandatory averments showing inability to pay, and the company raises a bona fide dispute with substance. Here, the civil decree supporting the debt was under appeal and treated as unenforceable for the present purpose, so winding up could not be used as a substitute for the appellate or execution process. The petition also failed to plead the required facts on assets, liabilities, and insolvency. The respondent&#039;s defence was supported by contractual disputes and was not shown to be illusory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>