https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219926 A winding up order was sustained because, on the date it was passed, no appeal was pending and the company court had jurisdiction despite earlier BIFR/AAIFR proceedings and a proposed revival scheme. The subsequent limited stay and later appellate steps did not unsettle the order. Orders relating to the sale of the company's land to HSCL were also left undisturbed, as the sale had proceeded within the existing process and no timely, legally sufficient ground justified recall or modification. The Employees' Union was found to have no subsisting locus after all workmen accepted voluntary retirement benefits, which ended the jural relationship with the company. en-us Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:08:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219926 A winding up order was sustained because, on the date it was passed, no appeal was pending and the company court had jurisdiction despite earlier BIFR/AAIFR proceedings and a proposed revival scheme. The subsequent limited stay and later appellate steps did not unsettle the order. Orders relating to the sale of the company's land to HSCL were also left undisturbed, as the sale had proceeded within the existing process and no timely, legally sufficient ground justified recall or modification. The Employees' Union was found to have no subsisting locus after all workmen accepted voluntary retirement benefits, which ended the jural relationship with the company. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219926