<?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>2017 (5) TMI 317 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342579</link>
    <description>A winding up petition may be admitted where the company has repeatedly acknowledged liabilities, including statutory dues and wage arrears, and the record shows no realistic prospect of revival. The Court treated the respondent as commercially insolvent because promoters declined further funding, the lenders would not extend additional support, and the proposed investor exited after the commercial premise failed. On that basis, the petitions were admitted with interim protection to preserve creditor interests and company assets. The lenders&#039; intervention was also allowed because their participation was relevant to the restructuring exercise and the respondent&#039;s overall financial position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467787" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 317 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342579</link>
      <description>A winding up petition may be admitted where the company has repeatedly acknowledged liabilities, including statutory dues and wage arrears, and the record shows no realistic prospect of revival. The Court treated the respondent as commercially insolvent because promoters declined further funding, the lenders would not extend additional support, and the proposed investor exited after the commercial premise failed. On that basis, the petitions were admitted with interim protection to preserve creditor interests and company assets. The lenders&#039; intervention was also allowed because their participation was relevant to the restructuring exercise and the respondent&#039;s overall financial position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>