<?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 (9) TMI 129 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347372</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition is a proceeding in rem and ordinarily requires advertisement, but failure by the original petitioner to advertise does not by itself compel dismissal. The Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 allow substitution of a creditor or contributory, and the court may also use its inherent powers to protect the interests of creditors and contributories and keep the proceeding alive. Where no substitute is immediately available, other interested persons should be given an opportunity to come forward before the petition is foreclosed. The dismissal of the petition and discharge of the provisional liquidator were therefore not sustainable, and the petition was restored for further winding-up proceedings under court supervision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 08:55:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 129 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347372</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition is a proceeding in rem and ordinarily requires advertisement, but failure by the original petitioner to advertise does not by itself compel dismissal. The Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 allow substitution of a creditor or contributory, and the court may also use its inherent powers to protect the interests of creditors and contributories and keep the proceeding alive. Where no substitute is immediately available, other interested persons should be given an opportunity to come forward before the petition is foreclosed. The dismissal of the petition and discharge of the provisional liquidator were therefore not sustainable, and the petition was restored for further winding-up proceedings under court supervision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>