<?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>1956 (1) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97406</link>
    <description>A scheme for reconstruction under section 153 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 may reorganise share capital, but where the arrangement involves reduction of capital, the special requirements for reduction must also be met. Sections 153 and 55 operate in distinct fields, and read with section 81(2) a resolution for reduction can be considered only at a meeting called on not less than 21 days&#039; notice unless all entitled members consent to shorter notice. Because the proposed modification involved cash payment of part of the face value of preference shares, it amounted to a reduction of capital, and notice of only about ten to eleven days was insufficient. The meetings were therefore illegal and invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:45:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (1) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97406</link>
      <description>A scheme for reconstruction under section 153 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 may reorganise share capital, but where the arrangement involves reduction of capital, the special requirements for reduction must also be met. Sections 153 and 55 operate in distinct fields, and read with section 81(2) a resolution for reduction can be considered only at a meeting called on not less than 21 days&#039; notice unless all entitled members consent to shorter notice. Because the proposed modification involved cash payment of part of the face value of preference shares, it amounted to a reduction of capital, and notice of only about ten to eleven days was insufficient. The meetings were therefore illegal and invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>