<?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>1955 (8) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97349</link>
    <description>Delegated District Court jurisdiction under the earlier Companies Act remained effective after the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 because its saving provision preserved prior notifications issued under corresponding law. Conferment of company jurisdiction on District Courts did not oust the High Court&#039;s original jurisdiction, as exclusion of a superior court requires express language or necessary implication. Pending company applications could therefore continue before the High Court, while transfer to the District Court remained available where appropriate. Proceedings initiated before a court retaining inherent jurisdiction were not invalid merely because a District Court was also competent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:32:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (8) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97349</link>
      <description>Delegated District Court jurisdiction under the earlier Companies Act remained effective after the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 because its saving provision preserved prior notifications issued under corresponding law. Conferment of company jurisdiction on District Courts did not oust the High Court&#039;s original jurisdiction, as exclusion of a superior court requires express language or necessary implication. Pending company applications could therefore continue before the High Court, while transfer to the District Court remained available where appropriate. Proceedings initiated before a court retaining inherent jurisdiction were not invalid merely because a District Court was also competent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>