Similar Posts

Indo Rolhard Industries Ltd. Vs. M.K. Mahajan & Anr.

ByVivek Kumar Verma

[2013] 178 CompCas 282 (Delhi) FACTS: A petition was filed by two shareholders for winding up of the appellant-company under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company court by the impugned order admitted the petition, directed the company to be wound up and, ordered the citation to be published in the “Statesman” (English)…
|

Case List: Winding Up

ByVivek Kumar Verma

A Admitted Debt u/s 433(3) of Companies Act, 1956 Alternative Remedy to be initiated before invoking just and equitable clause u/s 433 (f) B Bona fide dispute C Commercial Insolvency Creditor’s Objection to Winding Up Composite petitions under Sections 397, 398 and 433(f) D Dissolution of Partnership and Deadlock as grounds for Winding Up under Section…

Shri V.S. Krishnan & Ors vs M/S Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Shri V.S. Krishnan & Ors vs M/S Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital (2008) FACTS: Appellants Shri V.S. Krishnan and five others filed Company Petition before CLB under Sections 397 and 398 read with Sections 402, 403 and Schedule XI. According to the petitioners, they were collectively holding in excess of 1/10th of the issued share capital of…

Suspension of Contracts and Impact of Section 22(3) of SICA

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Section 22(3) of the Act of 1985 contemplates that where an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to in Section 17 is under preparation or during the period of consideration of any scheme under Section 18 or where any such scheme is sanctioned thereunder for due implementation of the scheme, the…

One Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *