<?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 (3) TMI 1467 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213555</link>
    <description>A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under SICA has statutory force and binds the company and all covered parties until it is lawfully modified or fully worked out. Discharge of the reference by BIFR because the company&#039;s net worth became positive does not, by itself, terminate the scheme or permit the Department to withdraw concessions already granted. The proper course for any grievance is enforcement of the scheme, not unilateral resiling from its terms. The Department therefore could not ignore the sanctioned concessions merely because the company&#039;s financial position improved, and the writ petitions failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1467 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213555</link>
      <description>A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under SICA has statutory force and binds the company and all covered parties until it is lawfully modified or fully worked out. Discharge of the reference by BIFR because the company&#039;s net worth became positive does not, by itself, terminate the scheme or permit the Department to withdraw concessions already granted. The proper course for any grievance is enforcement of the scheme, not unilateral resiling from its terms. The Department therefore could not ignore the sanctioned concessions merely because the company&#039;s financial position improved, and the writ petitions failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>