<?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 (9) TMI 5 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216153</link>
    <description>A provisional liquidator may be appointed where notice to the company is given or validly dispensed with for special reasons, and the court is satisfied that asset protection is needed pending winding up. On the facts discussed, the company&#039;s admitted liability, lack of demonstrated financial improvement, and unexplained risk of asset dissipation justified appointment of the Official Liquidator as provisional liquidator. The objection based on Rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was rejected because the petition had already been advertised under court directions and the rule operates subject to those directions. The commentary emphasises that the power is discretionary and aimed at preserving company assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 5 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216153</link>
      <description>A provisional liquidator may be appointed where notice to the company is given or validly dispensed with for special reasons, and the court is satisfied that asset protection is needed pending winding up. On the facts discussed, the company&#039;s admitted liability, lack of demonstrated financial improvement, and unexplained risk of asset dissipation justified appointment of the Official Liquidator as provisional liquidator. The objection based on Rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was rejected because the petition had already been advertised under court directions and the rule operates subject to those directions. The commentary emphasises that the power is discretionary and aimed at preserving company assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>