<?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>1960 (3) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97808</link>
    <description>A proposed alteration of a company&#039;s registered office from Orissa to Andhra Pradesh was assessed under the Companies Act by reference to bona fides, necessity for the company&#039;s objects, and the practical impact on the affected State. The Court treated the registered office as legally significant and considered objections based on revenue loss, administrative inconvenience for labour and industrial matters, and the lack of convincing evidence of real economic advantage. On the facts, it was not satisfied that the shift was genuinely necessary for direct and economical administration, so confirmation of the change was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:33:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (3) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97808</link>
      <description>A proposed alteration of a company&#039;s registered office from Orissa to Andhra Pradesh was assessed under the Companies Act by reference to bona fides, necessity for the company&#039;s objects, and the practical impact on the affected State. The Court treated the registered office as legally significant and considered objections based on revenue loss, administrative inconvenience for labour and industrial matters, and the lack of convincing evidence of real economic advantage. On the facts, it was not satisfied that the shift was genuinely necessary for direct and economical administration, so confirmation of the change was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>