<?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>A court considering sanction of a company reconstitution under section 153 of the Companies Act, 1913 must first decide whether the proposal placed before it is legally capable of approval. It cannot sanction a materially different arrangement or cure an unlawful proposal by substituting a new scheme; where the resolutions contemplated reconstitution without liability to members and no lawful scheme was before the court, sanction was unsustainable and was set aside. Where liquidation had substantially been completed, with assets realised and liabilities discharged, removal of the liquidator could be refused as no longer necessary for the company&#039;s protection, while unresolved charges were left open for consideration at 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>A court considering sanction of a company reconstitution under section 153 of the Companies Act, 1913 must first decide whether the proposal placed before it is legally capable of approval. It cannot sanction a materially different arrangement or cure an unlawful proposal by substituting a new scheme; where the resolutions contemplated reconstitution without liability to members and no lawful scheme was before the court, sanction was unsustainable and was set aside. Where liquidation had substantially been completed, with assets realised and liabilities discharged, removal of the liquidator could be refused as no longer necessary for the company&#039;s protection, while unresolved charges were left open for consideration at 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>