https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236358 A winding-up order was sustained where the company failed to place any concrete and credible revival or repayment scheme before the Court, withdrew a compromise proposal, and did not meaningfully engage secured creditors, unsecured creditors, or workmen. The Court held that creditor ascertainment under Section 557 could not cure the absence of a real revival plan, so the company remained fit for winding up. Directions relating to immovable properties transferred during the prohibited period were also upheld as lawful steps against suspected void or preferential transfers, while clarifying that any recovery action must proceed with notice in regular proceedings. The mortgagee bank's objection was treated as premature. en-us Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Aug 2013 08:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236358 A winding-up order was sustained where the company failed to place any concrete and credible revival or repayment scheme before the Court, withdrew a compromise proposal, and did not meaningfully engage secured creditors, unsecured creditors, or workmen. The Court held that creditor ascertainment under Section 557 could not cure the absence of a real revival plan, so the company remained fit for winding up. Directions relating to immovable properties transferred during the prohibited period were also upheld as lawful steps against suspected void or preferential transfers, while clarifying that any recovery action must proceed with notice in regular proceedings. The mortgagee bank's objection was treated as premature. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236358