<?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>2011 (8) TMI 1386 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459983</link>
    <description>In a winding up petition based on inability to pay admitted debts, the Court accepted the compromise only to the extent it reflected a lawful settlement of the parties&#039; disputes, including payment terms, premises vacating, security deposit retention, and outstanding dues. The clause providing for automatic admission or reinstatement of the company petition on breach of the settlement was held impermissible in law and rejected. The compromise was recorded, the petition was disposed of on that basis, and the petitioner was left at liberty to revive the company petition if the respondent failed to comply with the settlement terms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:41:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=787078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1386 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459983</link>
      <description>In a winding up petition based on inability to pay admitted debts, the Court accepted the compromise only to the extent it reflected a lawful settlement of the parties&#039; disputes, including payment terms, premises vacating, security deposit retention, and outstanding dues. The clause providing for automatic admission or reinstatement of the company petition on breach of the settlement was held impermissible in law and rejected. The compromise was recorded, the petition was disposed of on that basis, and the petitioner was left at liberty to revive the company petition if the respondent failed to comply with the settlement terms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>