https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459997 The HC determined that the respondent company was unable to pay its debts under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, due to its failure to adhere to the repayment schedule and lack of response to a statutory notice. The respondent's arguments citing external factors for default were deemed insufficient. Consequently, the court ordered the winding up of the respondent company and appointed the Official Liquidator under Section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956, to oversee the process. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory notices and repayment schedules as indicators of a company's solvency. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jan 2025 19:56:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459997 The HC determined that the respondent company was unable to pay its debts under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, due to its failure to adhere to the repayment schedule and lack of response to a statutory notice. The respondent's arguments citing external factors for default were deemed insufficient. Consequently, the court ordered the winding up of the respondent company and appointed the Official Liquidator under Section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956, to oversee the process. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory notices and repayment schedules as indicators of a company's solvency. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459997