https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171261 The court found the winding-up petition maintainable as the respondent company was unable to pay its debts. Jurisdiction was held in the court's favor despite the respondent's argument for Singapore law application. The court clarified the petition's purpose was not solely debt recovery but to address insolvency concerns. The arbitration clause was deemed irrelevant for winding-up proceedings, emphasizing court authority. Despite operational status, the respondent's heavy debts rendered it insolvent. The court appointed a provisional liquidator, restrained asset dealings, and granted a two-week payment window before enforcement. en-us Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171261 The court found the winding-up petition maintainable as the respondent company was unable to pay its debts. Jurisdiction was held in the court's favor despite the respondent's argument for Singapore law application. The court clarified the petition's purpose was not solely debt recovery but to address insolvency concerns. The arbitration clause was deemed irrelevant for winding-up proceedings, emphasizing court authority. Despite operational status, the respondent's heavy debts rendered it insolvent. The court appointed a provisional liquidator, restrained asset dealings, and granted a two-week payment window before enforcement. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171261