<?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>2026 (3) TMI 258 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787503</link>
    <description>A post-winding-up disposition may be protected under Section 536(2) if it is bona fide, fair, just and in the company&#039;s interest. The Bombay HC found the 2019 agreements assigning the remaining Jigaon project work valid because the company lacked capacity to complete its share, the arrangement reduced delay and penalty risk, and the applicant had taken over the work and liabilities in substance. Objections based on insufficient stamp duty, absence of VIDC permission and lack of consideration failed: stamping affected admissibility, not validity; the internal arrangement had already been acted upon; and consideration was shown through transfer of work and liabilities. The transaction was therefore validated and preserved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2026 08:39:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 258 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787503</link>
      <description>A post-winding-up disposition may be protected under Section 536(2) if it is bona fide, fair, just and in the company&#039;s interest. The Bombay HC found the 2019 agreements assigning the remaining Jigaon project work valid because the company lacked capacity to complete its share, the arrangement reduced delay and penalty risk, and the applicant had taken over the work and liabilities in substance. Objections based on insufficient stamp duty, absence of VIDC permission and lack of consideration failed: stamping affected admissibility, not validity; the internal arrangement had already been acted upon; and consideration was shown through transfer of work and liabilities. The transaction was therefore validated and preserved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>