<?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>1981 (3) TMI 271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302911</link>
    <description>A managing partner&#039;s letter declaring suspension of payments was treated as a valid act of insolvency because the surrounding circumstances, earlier creditor communications, and collective wording showed a genuine firm-level declaration rather than an isolated statement. The Court also held that the relevant debts were already due and payable, so the insolvency provision was attracted. Further, a partner managing the business could bind the other partners where the communication was issued for the firm with their participation or knowledge. On that basis, the suspension of payments was attributable to all partners, the adjudication order was upheld, and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2022 17:48:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (3) TMI 271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302911</link>
      <description>A managing partner&#039;s letter declaring suspension of payments was treated as a valid act of insolvency because the surrounding circumstances, earlier creditor communications, and collective wording showed a genuine firm-level declaration rather than an isolated statement. The Court also held that the relevant debts were already due and payable, so the insolvency provision was attracted. Further, a partner managing the business could bind the other partners where the communication was issued for the firm with their participation or knowledge. On that basis, the suspension of payments was attributable to all partners, the adjudication order was upheld, and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>