<?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>1957 (8) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97537</link>
    <description>Before sanctioning a compromise or reconstitution under section 153 of the Companies Act, the court must first determine whether the proposed scheme is legally permissible and may not lawfully approve a members&#039; resolution that effects an unlawful discharge of member liability or introduces a substantial alteration inconsistent with statute; consequently, the sanction given in the terms of members&#039; resolutions discharging members from liability was set aside. Separately, applications concerning a liquidator&#039;s conduct under section 176 may be pursued later; removal was refused while preserving the petitioner&#039;s right to agitate proven charges at the time of discharge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:45:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (8) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97537</link>
      <description>Before sanctioning a compromise or reconstitution under section 153 of the Companies Act, the court must first determine whether the proposed scheme is legally permissible and may not lawfully approve a members&#039; resolution that effects an unlawful discharge of member liability or introduces a substantial alteration inconsistent with statute; consequently, the sanction given in the terms of members&#039; resolutions discharging members from liability was set aside. Separately, applications concerning a liquidator&#039;s conduct under section 176 may be pursued later; removal was refused while preserving the petitioner&#039;s right to agitate proven charges at the time of discharge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>