<?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>2011 (6) TMI 295 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207855</link>
    <description>A winding up petition for inability to pay debts will not be admitted where the alleged debt is genuinely and substantially disputed. The court noted that a creditor must show a definite debt and commercial inability to pay; mere non-payment after statutory notice is insufficient if the company raises a bona fide dispute. On the facts, the respondent challenged the unit rate and the resulting account balance under a memorandum of understanding, showing a serious dispute about liability. Because there was no prima facie proof of commercial insolvency, admission of the winding up petition was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 295 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207855</link>
      <description>A winding up petition for inability to pay debts will not be admitted where the alleged debt is genuinely and substantially disputed. The court noted that a creditor must show a definite debt and commercial inability to pay; mere non-payment after statutory notice is insufficient if the company raises a bona fide dispute. On the facts, the respondent challenged the unit rate and the resulting account balance under a memorandum of understanding, showing a serious dispute about liability. Because there was no prima facie proof of commercial insolvency, admission of the winding up petition was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>