<?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>2018 (6) TMI 1264 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362437</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition may be admitted where the company fails to show a bona fide defence on prima facie material; receipt of the loan, unsupported allegations of fraud, withholding of documents, and no challenge to the loan agreement indicated that the debt was not genuinely disputed. A money-lender&#039;s licence objection under Section 13 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 did not apply to a winding-up application, because that provision was treated as governing recovery suits for money lent and advanced. The contractual interest rate was also considered excessive on the facts, so the claim was moderated to 9% per annum while the principal liability was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:54:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1264 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362437</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition may be admitted where the company fails to show a bona fide defence on prima facie material; receipt of the loan, unsupported allegations of fraud, withholding of documents, and no challenge to the loan agreement indicated that the debt was not genuinely disputed. A money-lender&#039;s licence objection under Section 13 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 did not apply to a winding-up application, because that provision was treated as governing recovery suits for money lent and advanced. The contractual interest rate was also considered excessive on the facts, so the claim was moderated to 9% per annum while the principal liability was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>