<?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>2012 (6) TMI 587 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214275</link>
    <description>In winding-up proceedings, actual receipt of the statutory demand notice by the company was treated as sufficient despite non-service at the registered office, so that defect did not by itself invalidate the petition. Before directing advertisement of the winding-up petition or appointing a provisional liquidator, the Court must conduct a summary enquiry and give the company an effective opportunity to demonstrate a bona fide dispute, security, counter-claim, or absence of a prima facie case. Where substantial disputes are raised and the petition is being used as a debt-recovery device, coercive steps should not be ordered mechanically. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 587 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214275</link>
      <description>In winding-up proceedings, actual receipt of the statutory demand notice by the company was treated as sufficient despite non-service at the registered office, so that defect did not by itself invalidate the petition. Before directing advertisement of the winding-up petition or appointing a provisional liquidator, the Court must conduct a summary enquiry and give the company an effective opportunity to demonstrate a bona fide dispute, security, counter-claim, or absence of a prima facie case. Where substantial disputes are raised and the petition is being used as a debt-recovery device, coercive steps should not be ordered mechanically. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>