<?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 1387 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460076</link>
    <description>Subsequent settlement of secured, statutory and other dues justified recall of the earlier order appointing the Provisional Liquidator and commencing winding-up proceedings. The HC treated the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction&#039;s recommendation as non-binding and assessed the matter on the present circumstances, including the absence of continuing prejudice to creditors, workmen or the public interest. As the liabilities had been substantially settled and no useful purpose remained in remitting the matter for reconsideration, the application was allowed and possession of the company was ordered to be restored to its authorised representative after compliance with legal formalities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2025 12:53:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=787958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1387 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460076</link>
      <description>Subsequent settlement of secured, statutory and other dues justified recall of the earlier order appointing the Provisional Liquidator and commencing winding-up proceedings. The HC treated the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction&#039;s recommendation as non-binding and assessed the matter on the present circumstances, including the absence of continuing prejudice to creditors, workmen or the public interest. As the liabilities had been substantially settled and no useful purpose remained in remitting the matter for reconsideration, the application was allowed and possession of the company was ordered to be restored to its authorised representative after compliance with legal formalities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>