<?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>2022 (8) TMI 659 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426420</link>
    <description>The court set aside the order admitting the winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant was directed to deposit a specified amount with the court registry for investment in an interest-bearing Fixed Deposit Receipt. The deposited amount would be subject to the outcome of arbitration proceedings against Webel Technology Ltd. Additionally, if the Official Liquidator had not incurred expenses for citation, the amount deposited by the respondent was to be refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Aug 2022 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 659 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426420</link>
      <description>The court set aside the order admitting the winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant was directed to deposit a specified amount with the court registry for investment in an interest-bearing Fixed Deposit Receipt. The deposited amount would be subject to the outcome of arbitration proceedings against Webel Technology Ltd. Additionally, if the Official Liquidator had not incurred expenses for citation, the amount deposited by the respondent was to be refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>