<?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>2008 (11) TMI 719 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198109</link>
    <description>A winding up defence must be supported by contemporaneous material to qualify as a bona fide dispute. Where statutory notice was issued to the old management, remained unanswered, and the company later challenged the invoices only after a change in management without documentary support, the court treated the objection as a delayed attempt to resist payment. Prior payments against the invoices and the absence of any contemporaneous dispute over the unpaid balance undermined the defence. The recall application therefore failed because the alleged dispute was not genuine and was seen as intended to defer payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:40:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505759" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 719 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198109</link>
      <description>A winding up defence must be supported by contemporaneous material to qualify as a bona fide dispute. Where statutory notice was issued to the old management, remained unanswered, and the company later challenged the invoices only after a change in management without documentary support, the court treated the objection as a delayed attempt to resist payment. Prior payments against the invoices and the absence of any contemporaneous dispute over the unpaid balance undermined the defence. The recall application therefore failed because the alleged dispute was not genuine and was seen as intended to defer payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>