<?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 (12) TMI 395 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371626</link>
    <description>Pending winding up proceedings could be transferred to the NCLT under Section 434(1)(c) where the Official Liquidator was already a party and the transfer application served the creditors&#039; collective interest. The objection that the secured creditor was not the original winding up petitioner was treated as only technical and did not defeat maintainability. On the facts, the long-pending proceedings had produced no effective recovery, the assets were already with secured creditors or otherwise inadequate, and the Tribunal route offered a better prospect of resolution. The High Court therefore upheld the transfer order and the revocation of the provisional liquidator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2018 06:53:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 395 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371626</link>
      <description>Pending winding up proceedings could be transferred to the NCLT under Section 434(1)(c) where the Official Liquidator was already a party and the transfer application served the creditors&#039; collective interest. The objection that the secured creditor was not the original winding up petitioner was treated as only technical and did not defeat maintainability. On the facts, the long-pending proceedings had produced no effective recovery, the assets were already with secured creditors or otherwise inadequate, and the Tribunal route offered a better prospect of resolution. The High Court therefore upheld the transfer order and the revocation of the provisional liquidator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>