<?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>1935 (3) TMI 12 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96673</link>
    <description>A scheme approved under section 153 of the Companies Act bound only the class of creditors or persons who framed it, and could not be extended without statutory warrant to a decree-holder whose position had changed from depositor to judgment-creditor. Because the petitioner&#039;s interest was distinct from and adverse to that of the depositors, she was not bound by the scheme, and the objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:31:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (3) TMI 12 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96673</link>
      <description>A scheme approved under section 153 of the Companies Act bound only the class of creditors or persons who framed it, and could not be extended without statutory warrant to a decree-holder whose position had changed from depositor to judgment-creditor. Because the petitioner&#039;s interest was distinct from and adverse to that of the depositors, she was not bound by the scheme, and the objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96673</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>