<?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>1968 (8) TMI 197 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185999</link>
    <description>A secured creditor may maintain a winding-up petition without first relinquishing or valuing its security, and ordinary insolvency rules do not bar that remedy. Defects in affidavit verification were treated as non-fatal because the deponent was conversant with the facts, and alleged ultra vires borrowing under Section 293(1)(d) did not defeat the petition where the transactions were supported by company sanction. A pending challenge to the Government&#039;s sanction under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act did not justify stay or dismissal. Commercial and hopeless insolvency was found, so winding up was warranted, with limited postponement of the order&#039;s operation for negotiations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2016 14:14:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (8) TMI 197 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185999</link>
      <description>A secured creditor may maintain a winding-up petition without first relinquishing or valuing its security, and ordinary insolvency rules do not bar that remedy. Defects in affidavit verification were treated as non-fatal because the deponent was conversant with the facts, and alleged ultra vires borrowing under Section 293(1)(d) did not defeat the petition where the transactions were supported by company sanction. A pending challenge to the Government&#039;s sanction under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act did not justify stay or dismissal. Commercial and hopeless insolvency was found, so winding up was warranted, with limited postponement of the order&#039;s operation for negotiations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>