<?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 (5) TMI 1856 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279807</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the Company Petition seeking the winding up of M/s Prestige City Developers Private Limited under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner&#039;s claims of financial obligations and mismanagement were refuted by the respondent company, emphasizing adherence to accounting principles. The court found the company had made efforts to repay the petitioner, offering flats which were refused, indicating the company&#039;s ability to pay debts. The petition was dismissed, advising the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies for recovery, and the interim order restraining property alienation was lifted, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2019 05:57:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1856 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279807</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the Company Petition seeking the winding up of M/s Prestige City Developers Private Limited under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner&#039;s claims of financial obligations and mismanagement were refuted by the respondent company, emphasizing adherence to accounting principles. The court found the company had made efforts to repay the petitioner, offering flats which were refused, indicating the company&#039;s ability to pay debts. The petition was dismissed, advising the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies for recovery, and the interim order restraining property alienation was lifted, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>