<?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 (12) TMI 348 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415582</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition for inability to pay debts will be resisted only if the debtor raises a bona fide, substantial defence supported by prima facie facts and likely to succeed in law. Objections based on stamping, the form or assignment of bills of exchange, and enforceability of the debt were treated as issues of proof rather than grounds to defeat the petition. The company&#039;s certificates of acceptance for each invoice amounted to an admission of liability, and its technical objections were found not bona fide. A defence based on absence of DGCA approval and public policy also failed because the company had continued taking the services and remained bound by accrued contractual obligations. The company was liable to be wound up.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 08:35:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 348 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415582</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition for inability to pay debts will be resisted only if the debtor raises a bona fide, substantial defence supported by prima facie facts and likely to succeed in law. Objections based on stamping, the form or assignment of bills of exchange, and enforceability of the debt were treated as issues of proof rather than grounds to defeat the petition. The company&#039;s certificates of acceptance for each invoice amounted to an admission of liability, and its technical objections were found not bona fide. A defence based on absence of DGCA approval and public policy also failed because the company had continued taking the services and remained bound by accrued contractual obligations. The company was liable to be wound up.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>