<?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 (12) TMI 620 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219605</link>
    <description>Commercial insolvency, not an abstract balance-sheet comparison, governed the winding-up inquiry under the Companies Act, 1956. Failure to pay an admitted and undisputed debt after statutory notice raised a presumption that the company was unable to pay its debts, and the existence of immovable assets, blocked assets, or security in other proceedings did not defeat that conclusion. Pending arbitration and proceedings for interim protection under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were held not to bar a creditor&#039;s winding-up petition because the reliefs were different. Guarantors&#039; undertakings and injunctions obtained elsewhere did not amount to payment or displace the company&#039;s liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:46:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 620 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219605</link>
      <description>Commercial insolvency, not an abstract balance-sheet comparison, governed the winding-up inquiry under the Companies Act, 1956. Failure to pay an admitted and undisputed debt after statutory notice raised a presumption that the company was unable to pay its debts, and the existence of immovable assets, blocked assets, or security in other proceedings did not defeat that conclusion. Pending arbitration and proceedings for interim protection under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were held not to bar a creditor&#039;s winding-up petition because the reliefs were different. Guarantors&#039; undertakings and injunctions obtained elsewhere did not amount to payment or displace the company&#039;s liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>