<?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 (3) TMI 887 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459511</link>
    <description>A winding up petition for alleged non-payment of debt will not lie where the respondent shows a bona fide and substantial dispute supported by the contractual record and the parties&#039; conduct. The Court found that the alleged admissions in the minutes of settlement did not extinguish continuing disputes, and the agreed payments formed part of a broader arrangement involving reciprocal obligations on performance and rectification of defects. The respondent&#039;s defence was not shown to be a sham raised merely to defeat notice, and prior payment of a large part of the contract value also weighed against any inference of inability to pay. The petition therefore failed at the threshold.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 18:56:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 887 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459511</link>
      <description>A winding up petition for alleged non-payment of debt will not lie where the respondent shows a bona fide and substantial dispute supported by the contractual record and the parties&#039; conduct. The Court found that the alleged admissions in the minutes of settlement did not extinguish continuing disputes, and the agreed payments formed part of a broader arrangement involving reciprocal obligations on performance and rectification of defects. The respondent&#039;s defence was not shown to be a sham raised merely to defeat notice, and prior payment of a large part of the contract value also weighed against any inference of inability to pay. The petition therefore failed at the threshold.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>