https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234476 A winding-up petition based on bondholder rights was not maintainable because the trustee failed to show prior authorisation from holders of at least 25% of the outstanding principal, as required under the trust deed. The court did not accept a later attempt to file supporting documents after judgment was reserved. It also reiterated that winding up is not a proper method to compel payment or pressure settlement against a going concern, particularly where the company was shown to be facing financial difficulty. The petition was therefore rejected and no winding-up order was made. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 May 2013 12:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234476 A winding-up petition based on bondholder rights was not maintainable because the trustee failed to show prior authorisation from holders of at least 25% of the outstanding principal, as required under the trust deed. The court did not accept a later attempt to file supporting documents after judgment was reserved. It also reiterated that winding up is not a proper method to compel payment or pressure settlement against a going concern, particularly where the company was shown to be facing financial difficulty. The petition was therefore rejected and no winding-up order was made. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234476