<?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>2008 (11) TMI 624 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163810</link>
    <description>Section 19 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 empowers the BIFR, while framing or sanctioning a rehabilitation scheme, to issue binding directions for financial assistance, concessions, reliefs or sacrifices from concerned institutions. Applying that principle, the court held that the BIFR could direct the operating agency to settle dues and proceed on RBI guidelines in aid of revival, and that the institution could not defeat those directions by relying on its own internal guidelines. The cited precedent was found inapplicable on its facts. The challenge to the winding up order succeeded and the writ petition was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 624 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163810</link>
      <description>Section 19 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 empowers the BIFR, while framing or sanctioning a rehabilitation scheme, to issue binding directions for financial assistance, concessions, reliefs or sacrifices from concerned institutions. Applying that principle, the court held that the BIFR could direct the operating agency to settle dues and proceed on RBI guidelines in aid of revival, and that the institution could not defeat those directions by relying on its own internal guidelines. The cited precedent was found inapplicable on its facts. The challenge to the winding up order succeeded and the writ petition was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163810</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>