<?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 589 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113945</link>
    <description>A petition for winding up on just and equitable grounds may be refused where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available and the petitioners act unreasonably in seeking winding up instead of that remedy. Reliefs alleging mismanagement, oppression, fraud and misappropriation were treated as interlinked with the winding-up prayer, and the statutory remedies under the Companies Act, 1956, including provisions dealing with investigation and oppression, remained relevant to maintainability. Prior admission of the petition did not prevent the court from examining jurisdiction and maintainability. Winding up was treated as a remedy of last resort, and the petition was held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 589 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113945</link>
      <description>A petition for winding up on just and equitable grounds may be refused where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available and the petitioners act unreasonably in seeking winding up instead of that remedy. Reliefs alleging mismanagement, oppression, fraud and misappropriation were treated as interlinked with the winding-up prayer, and the statutory remedies under the Companies Act, 1956, including provisions dealing with investigation and oppression, remained relevant to maintainability. Prior admission of the petition did not prevent the court from examining jurisdiction and maintainability. Winding up was treated as a remedy of last resort, and the petition was held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113945</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>