https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180475 The court dismissed the winding up petition against the respondent company due to the time-barred debt and lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claim. The dispute arose from a purchase agreement for drugs where the quality of raw material supplied was contested. The court emphasized the importance of initiating legal proceedings within the limitation period and highlighted that the BIFR order did not extend the time for debt recovery. Without sufficient evidence of return or supply of manufactured drugs, the petitioner's claim for recovery of the debited amount was deemed questionable, leading to the dismissal of the petition. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:50:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180475 The court dismissed the winding up petition against the respondent company due to the time-barred debt and lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claim. The dispute arose from a purchase agreement for drugs where the quality of raw material supplied was contested. The court emphasized the importance of initiating legal proceedings within the limitation period and highlighted that the BIFR order did not extend the time for debt recovery. Without sufficient evidence of return or supply of manufactured drugs, the petitioner's claim for recovery of the debited amount was deemed questionable, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 09 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180475