<?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>1992 (12) TMI 229 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199232</link>
    <description>The petitioner was found to be a creditor and deemed contributory, not a debtor, because his capital contribution and share in goodwill and reserves had not been properly accounted for, and the company&#039;s debit entries were unauthorised and unreliable. On the partnership-company dispute, the Court found that the alleged conversion was not genuine, the notices and transfer records were defective or manipulated, and the relationship between the partners had irretrievably broken down; instead of winding up the company, it ordered dissolution of the erstwhile partnership and settlement of accounts on a just and equitable basis. The second company petition failed because the statutory notice was not validly served at the registered office, so the deeming fiction for inability to pay debts did not arise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:41:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 229 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199232</link>
      <description>The petitioner was found to be a creditor and deemed contributory, not a debtor, because his capital contribution and share in goodwill and reserves had not been properly accounted for, and the company&#039;s debit entries were unauthorised and unreliable. On the partnership-company dispute, the Court found that the alleged conversion was not genuine, the notices and transfer records were defective or manipulated, and the relationship between the partners had irretrievably broken down; instead of winding up the company, it ordered dissolution of the erstwhile partnership and settlement of accounts on a just and equitable basis. The second company petition failed because the statutory notice was not validly served at the registered office, so the deeming fiction for inability to pay debts did not arise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>