<?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>2021 (2) TMI 16 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , BENGALURU BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403524</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition was treated as maintainable despite parallel proceedings in other fora, because the Tribunal viewed its Companies Act jurisdiction as distinct from the award-related disputes and not displaced by pending civil, High Court, or Supreme Court proceedings. On the materials showing alleged fraudulent conduct in incorporation and management, the Tribunal found a prima facie basis for admission and appointed a provisional liquidator to protect the company&#039;s affairs and assets pending final adjudication. Objections based on alleged lack of fuller prior opportunity and procedural filing defects were rejected as the parties had been heard and the defects were treated as curable, so interim relief was allowed to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2021 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=634276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 16 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , BENGALURU BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403524</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition was treated as maintainable despite parallel proceedings in other fora, because the Tribunal viewed its Companies Act jurisdiction as distinct from the award-related disputes and not displaced by pending civil, High Court, or Supreme Court proceedings. On the materials showing alleged fraudulent conduct in incorporation and management, the Tribunal found a prima facie basis for admission and appointed a provisional liquidator to protect the company&#039;s affairs and assets pending final adjudication. Objections based on alleged lack of fuller prior opportunity and procedural filing defects were rejected as the parties had been heard and the defects were treated as curable, so interim relief was allowed to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>