https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293812 The Supreme Court directed the respondent company to deposit a specified amount and pay the balance within a set period. Despite this directive, the company failed to comply, resulting in the petition being admitted for default. The court found the company's actions to be a misuse of the settlement process, leading to the order for the petition to be advertised for winding up proceedings. Due to the company's history of non-compliance, the court deemed the renewed settlement attempt as not genuine, extending the returnable date for further proceedings. en-us Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Mar 2021 08:23:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293812 The Supreme Court directed the respondent company to deposit a specified amount and pay the balance within a set period. Despite this directive, the company failed to comply, resulting in the petition being admitted for default. The court found the company's actions to be a misuse of the settlement process, leading to the order for the petition to be advertised for winding up proceedings. Due to the company's history of non-compliance, the court deemed the renewed settlement attempt as not genuine, extending the returnable date for further proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293812