<?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 (6) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98133</link>
    <description>A company in liquidation retains separate corporate existence, and proceedings concerning its property or rights must be taken in the company&#039;s name through the official liquidator. The liquidator is entitled to custody of the company&#039;s assets, and any institution or continuation of proceedings requires the necessary sanction of the winding-up court. A shareholder has no proprietary interest in those assets and cannot, merely because he was impleaded as a plaintiff, maintain an appeal for reliefs belonging to the company. As no leave was obtained for the shareholder to appeal in that representative capacity, the appeal was held incompetent for want of locus standi.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:56:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (6) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98133</link>
      <description>A company in liquidation retains separate corporate existence, and proceedings concerning its property or rights must be taken in the company&#039;s name through the official liquidator. The liquidator is entitled to custody of the company&#039;s assets, and any institution or continuation of proceedings requires the necessary sanction of the winding-up court. A shareholder has no proprietary interest in those assets and cannot, merely because he was impleaded as a plaintiff, maintain an appeal for reliefs belonging to the company. As no leave was obtained for the shareholder to appeal in that representative capacity, the appeal was held incompetent for want of locus standi.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>