<?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 (11) TMI 845 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126893</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the winding-up petition as the petitioner could not rely on the unregistered lease deed for claims, and the liquidated damages claim was unsustainable. The security deposit covered the rent arrears, and no further amounts were due from the respondent company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 845 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126893</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the winding-up petition as the petitioner could not rely on the unregistered lease deed for claims, and the liquidated damages claim was unsustainable. The security deposit covered the rent arrears, and no further amounts were due from the respondent company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>