https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215425 A change in shareholding or management did not justify recall of the admission order because the company remained a separate juristic entity and had notice of the winding-up proceedings but chose not to appear. The presence of an arbitration clause did not oust the company court's statutory jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 1956, since winding-up relief is distinct from contractual arbitration and cannot be granted by an arbitrator. Once an admitted debt remained unpaid after statutory notice, the presumption of inability to pay debts under section 434(1)(a) continued; commercial solvency and an unproven dispute over quantum were insufficient to displace it. en-us Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215425 A change in shareholding or management did not justify recall of the admission order because the company remained a separate juristic entity and had notice of the winding-up proceedings but chose not to appear. The presence of an arbitration clause did not oust the company court's statutory jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 1956, since winding-up relief is distinct from contractual arbitration and cannot be granted by an arbitrator. Once an admitted debt remained unpaid after statutory notice, the presumption of inability to pay debts under section 434(1)(a) continued; commercial solvency and an unproven dispute over quantum were insufficient to displace it. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215425