<?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>1998 (5) TMI 413 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198406</link>
    <description>An acknowledgment of liability in a balance sheet or written reply can extend limitation for a winding-up petition, and a separate civil remedy for recovery does not bar insolvency-style winding-up proceedings. On the facts, the company&#039;s balance sheet showed the petitioner as a creditor and the liability was also admitted in a director&#039;s reply to the Registrar of Companies, so the petition was treated as within time and maintainable. The attempt to recall, review and seek condonation of delay in relation to the admission and winding-up orders failed because the respondent had knowledge of the proceedings, received repeated opportunities, and offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The winding-up orders were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:05:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 413 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198406</link>
      <description>An acknowledgment of liability in a balance sheet or written reply can extend limitation for a winding-up petition, and a separate civil remedy for recovery does not bar insolvency-style winding-up proceedings. On the facts, the company&#039;s balance sheet showed the petitioner as a creditor and the liability was also admitted in a director&#039;s reply to the Registrar of Companies, so the petition was treated as within time and maintainable. The attempt to recall, review and seek condonation of delay in relation to the admission and winding-up orders failed because the respondent had knowledge of the proceedings, received repeated opportunities, and offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The winding-up orders were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>