<?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 (9) TMI 522 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366786</link>
    <description>The court admitted the winding up petition under Sections 433(e) and (f), 434(1)(a), and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 due to the respondent company&#039;s failure to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 5,71,640 for plywood and allied products. Despite the respondent&#039;s defenses regarding invoice validity and the nature of a post-dated cheque, the court found the petitioner&#039;s evidence compelling. The court emphasized the need for a bona fide dispute, determining that the respondent&#039;s defenses were not genuine. Consequently, the court appointed the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator and allowed a four-week suspension for settlement before further liquidation proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2018 08:11:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533830" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 522 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366786</link>
      <description>The court admitted the winding up petition under Sections 433(e) and (f), 434(1)(a), and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 due to the respondent company&#039;s failure to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 5,71,640 for plywood and allied products. Despite the respondent&#039;s defenses regarding invoice validity and the nature of a post-dated cheque, the court found the petitioner&#039;s evidence compelling. The court emphasized the need for a bona fide dispute, determining that the respondent&#039;s defenses were not genuine. Consequently, the court appointed the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator and allowed a four-week suspension for settlement before further liquidation proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>