<?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>2016 (11) TMI 1703 - Bombay High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299286</link>
    <description>In winding-up proceedings based on a statutory demand, collateral objections did not displace the creditor&#039;s case where indebtedness was otherwise established. The plea that the corporate guarantee was executed through the bank&#039;s Hong Kong branch, and thus lacked privity with the Mumbai office, was held untenable on the document&#039;s terms. The alleged insufficiency of stamp duty did not bar reliance on the guarantee in the company petition, since the court was concerned with inability to pay debts rather than enforcement of the instrument itself. Absence of the contractual certificate was not ative because liability was supported by acknowledgments, balance-sheet disclosure, and quantified dues, and the winding-up order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Dec 2021 19:50:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1703 - Bombay High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299286</link>
      <description>In winding-up proceedings based on a statutory demand, collateral objections did not displace the creditor&#039;s case where indebtedness was otherwise established. The plea that the corporate guarantee was executed through the bank&#039;s Hong Kong branch, and thus lacked privity with the Mumbai office, was held untenable on the document&#039;s terms. The alleged insufficiency of stamp duty did not bar reliance on the guarantee in the company petition, since the court was concerned with inability to pay debts rather than enforcement of the instrument itself. Absence of the contractual certificate was not ative because liability was supported by acknowledgments, balance-sheet disclosure, and quantified dues, and the winding-up order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>