<?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>1959 (9) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97679</link>
    <description>A successor State that accepts and exercises benefits of its predecessor&#039;s shareholding is liable for liabilities attached to those rights; here the successor State was held bound for unpaid calls. A liquidator must pursue contributory recoveries by the statutory winding-up procedure with prescribed particulars, otherwise the claim is treated as a contractual debt subject to limitation; the present claim lacked the form and particulars for that procedure and thus cannot sustain the recovery ordered below. Interest cannot be awarded against the State absent statutory or contractual authority. No order for rent was made without evidence the State held company funds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:35:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (9) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97679</link>
      <description>A successor State that accepts and exercises benefits of its predecessor&#039;s shareholding is liable for liabilities attached to those rights; here the successor State was held bound for unpaid calls. A liquidator must pursue contributory recoveries by the statutory winding-up procedure with prescribed particulars, otherwise the claim is treated as a contractual debt subject to limitation; the present claim lacked the form and particulars for that procedure and thus cannot sustain the recovery ordered below. Interest cannot be awarded against the State absent statutory or contractual authority. No order for rent was made without evidence the State held company funds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>