https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199055 The court admitted the petition seeking a winding-up order against respondent No. 3 company due to prima facie evidence of differences in management and a deadlock. The court withheld the publication of citations until final decisions on disputed questions. The petitioner was directed to file evidence by way of affidavits within six weeks, followed by respondents' affidavits within six weeks thereafter, and rebuttal affidavits by the petitioner within three weeks. Further directions and arguments were scheduled for 15-9-1994. en-us Thu, 19 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:15:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199055 The court admitted the petition seeking a winding-up order against respondent No. 3 company due to prima facie evidence of differences in management and a deadlock. The court withheld the publication of citations until final decisions on disputed questions. The petitioner was directed to file evidence by way of affidavits within six weeks, followed by respondents' affidavits within six weeks thereafter, and rebuttal affidavits by the petitioner within three weeks. Further directions and arguments were scheduled for 15-9-1994. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 19 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199055