<?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>2018 (5) TMI 2154 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309583</link>
    <description>A company may be wound up for inability to pay its debts where the debt is admitted or otherwise sufficiently established, the statutory notice is not effectively answered, and no bona fide defence is shown. Here, the court found the respondent&#039;s liability supported by a cheque, part-payment, and a later confirmation of account acknowledging the outstanding amount, while the allegations of defective or undelivered goods lacked credible documentary support. The objection based on pending BIFR proceedings was also unsupported. On that material, the defence was treated as an afterthought and the debt as admitted and unpaid, justifying a winding-up order for commercial insolvency.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2023 22:38:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 2154 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309583</link>
      <description>A company may be wound up for inability to pay its debts where the debt is admitted or otherwise sufficiently established, the statutory notice is not effectively answered, and no bona fide defence is shown. Here, the court found the respondent&#039;s liability supported by a cheque, part-payment, and a later confirmation of account acknowledging the outstanding amount, while the allegations of defective or undelivered goods lacked credible documentary support. The objection based on pending BIFR proceedings was also unsupported. On that material, the defence was treated as an afterthought and the debt as admitted and unpaid, justifying a winding-up order for commercial insolvency.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>