<?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>2013 (6) TMI 940 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459503</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition is not maintainable where the alleged debt is bona fide disputed and the claimant fails to show that the company is unable to pay its debts. The petition here rested on asserted default under sub-concession agreements and alleged abandonment of premises, but the respondent disputed liability and said the business had closed because the premises were commercially unviable. As no reconciliation details or supporting bills were furnished, the debt was not shown to be admitted or undisputed. Bare assertions of financial weakness also did not establish commercial insolvency, so the winding-up jurisdiction could not be used as a debt-recovery tool or coercive measure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 14:33:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 940 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459503</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition is not maintainable where the alleged debt is bona fide disputed and the claimant fails to show that the company is unable to pay its debts. The petition here rested on asserted default under sub-concession agreements and alleged abandonment of premises, but the respondent disputed liability and said the business had closed because the premises were commercially unviable. As no reconciliation details or supporting bills were furnished, the debt was not shown to be admitted or undisputed. Bare assertions of financial weakness also did not establish commercial insolvency, so the winding-up jurisdiction could not be used as a debt-recovery tool or coercive measure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>