https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281325 The court admitted the winding-up petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, despite the respondent's restructuring proposal under the CDR mechanism. The court held that the restructuring proposal did not prevent the petitioner from maintaining the petition, leading to the admission of the petition and directing advertisement for the winding-up hearing. Additionally, the court allowed the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator to manage company assets and prevent misappropriation, while granting the respondent liberty to pursue proposals with banks and settle debts. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jun 2019 06:36:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281325 The court admitted the winding-up petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, despite the respondent's restructuring proposal under the CDR mechanism. The court held that the restructuring proposal did not prevent the petitioner from maintaining the petition, leading to the admission of the petition and directing advertisement for the winding-up hearing. Additionally, the court allowed the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator to manage company assets and prevent misappropriation, while granting the respondent liberty to pursue proposals with banks and settle debts. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281325