<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1559 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169490</link>
    <description>The court admitted the winding-up petition filed by a trustee against the respondent company, finding the company commercially insolvent and the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) scheme inadequate to address the petitioner&#039;s claims. The court held that the trustee had the authority to file the petition, rejecting challenges to the petitioner&#039;s locus standi. Additionally, the court found that the respondent&#039;s failure to redeem bonds and participate transparently in the CDR scheme supported the petition&#039;s claims of discrimination. The court directed the petition to be advertised and permitted the petitioner to seek the appointment of a provisional liquidator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2023 14:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1559 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169490</link>
      <description>The court admitted the winding-up petition filed by a trustee against the respondent company, finding the company commercially insolvent and the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) scheme inadequate to address the petitioner&#039;s claims. The court held that the trustee had the authority to file the petition, rejecting challenges to the petitioner&#039;s locus standi. Additionally, the court found that the respondent&#039;s failure to redeem bonds and participate transparently in the CDR scheme supported the petition&#039;s claims of discrimination. The court directed the petition to be advertised and permitted the petitioner to seek the appointment of a provisional liquidator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169490</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>