<?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>2005 (11) TMI 511 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198110</link>
    <description>A creditor&#039;s winding-up petition under the Companies Act is not a mere debt-recovery device; the court examines whether the company is commercially insolvent and whether any non-payment is supported by a bona fide dispute. On the facts, the alleged defects in the supplied material were not substantiated by reliable correspondence, technical analysis, or purchaser records, and the supposed promise of a credit note was unsupported. The court treated the defence as moonshine, found that the company was unable to pay its admitted debts, and held that its closure of production and factory operations reinforced commercial insolvency. The petition was directed to be advertised, and the company was restrained from dealing with its assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:47:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 511 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198110</link>
      <description>A creditor&#039;s winding-up petition under the Companies Act is not a mere debt-recovery device; the court examines whether the company is commercially insolvent and whether any non-payment is supported by a bona fide dispute. On the facts, the alleged defects in the supplied material were not substantiated by reliable correspondence, technical analysis, or purchaser records, and the supposed promise of a credit note was unsupported. The court treated the defence as moonshine, found that the company was unable to pay its admitted debts, and held that its closure of production and factory operations reinforced commercial insolvency. The petition was directed to be advertised, and the company was restrained from dealing with its assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>