https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181013 A second winding up petition was held not barred by res judicata because the earlier petition had been withdrawn without a final adjudication and with liberty to proceed in accordance with law; any restraint arose only under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC where a fresh proceeding is filed after withdrawal without permission. On merits, the petitions were found fit for admission because the record showed supply of goods, part-payment, non-payment of the balance and no plausible bona fide dispute or substantial defence by the respondent. The dismissal of the winding up petitions was set aside and the petitions were admitted, with directions for advertisement and a stay arrangement subject to payment. en-us Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:01:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181013 A second winding up petition was held not barred by res judicata because the earlier petition had been withdrawn without a final adjudication and with liberty to proceed in accordance with law; any restraint arose only under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC where a fresh proceeding is filed after withdrawal without permission. On merits, the petitions were found fit for admission because the record showed supply of goods, part-payment, non-payment of the balance and no plausible bona fide dispute or substantial defence by the respondent. The dismissal of the winding up petitions was set aside and the petitions were admitted, with directions for advertisement and a stay arrangement subject to payment. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181013