<?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>2009 (10) TMI 968 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279337</link>
    <description>An industrial company ceases to remain sick under SICA when its audited balance sheet shows positive net worth and the accumulated losses have been fully wiped out, and BIFR and AAIFR&#039;s jurisdiction ends once that statutory condition is met. The Delhi High Court also noted that a secured creditor cannot sustain a challenge to revival measures without showing real prejudice, particularly where the security interest remains protected by mortgage and recovery rights are not impaired. Applying these principles, the challenge to the AAIFR order failed because the company had validly exited the sick company regime and no actionable injury was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:15:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=562671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 968 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279337</link>
      <description>An industrial company ceases to remain sick under SICA when its audited balance sheet shows positive net worth and the accumulated losses have been fully wiped out, and BIFR and AAIFR&#039;s jurisdiction ends once that statutory condition is met. The Delhi High Court also noted that a secured creditor cannot sustain a challenge to revival measures without showing real prejudice, particularly where the security interest remains protected by mortgage and recovery rights are not impaired. Applying these principles, the challenge to the AAIFR order failed because the company had validly exited the sick company regime and no actionable injury was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>