<?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>1964 (5) TMI 23 - IN THE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98109</link>
    <description>Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948 was construed as mandatory once the statutory preconditions were met, and &quot;the affairs of the company&quot; was given a broad, natural meaning covering business affairs, assets, investments, goodwill and transactions affecting future trading prospects. Acts of a receiver and manager appointed under a debenture did not cease to be matters of the company&#039;s affairs, including management decisions affecting a subsidiary and sub-subsidiary. Where the public authority declined to appoint inspectors despite that duty, mandamus remained available because the suggested procedure was not an equally convenient alternative remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (5) TMI 23 - IN THE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98109</link>
      <description>Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948 was construed as mandatory once the statutory preconditions were met, and &quot;the affairs of the company&quot; was given a broad, natural meaning covering business affairs, assets, investments, goodwill and transactions affecting future trading prospects. Acts of a receiver and manager appointed under a debenture did not cease to be matters of the company&#039;s affairs, including management decisions affecting a subsidiary and sub-subsidiary. Where the public authority declined to appoint inspectors despite that duty, mandamus remained available because the suggested procedure was not an equally convenient alternative remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>