<?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 (11) TMI 36 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98174</link>
    <description>Winding up on the just and equitable ground requires a strong case grounded in the interests of members as such, and the court will not bypass the society&#039;s domestic forum merely because mismanagement is alleged. Even if misconduct is assumed, it is not enough without lack of probity or a genuine basis for concluding that the society has lost its substratum. The alleged share issue was treated as bona fide management action, better challenged in other proceedings, and section 10 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1958 did not create a new winding-up ground or expand the just and equitable jurisdiction. The evidence did not show that the society had ceased to serve any useful purpose, so the petitions failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (11) TMI 36 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98174</link>
      <description>Winding up on the just and equitable ground requires a strong case grounded in the interests of members as such, and the court will not bypass the society&#039;s domestic forum merely because mismanagement is alleged. Even if misconduct is assumed, it is not enough without lack of probity or a genuine basis for concluding that the society has lost its substratum. The alleged share issue was treated as bona fide management action, better challenged in other proceedings, and section 10 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1958 did not create a new winding-up ground or expand the just and equitable jurisdiction. The evidence did not show that the society had ceased to serve any useful purpose, so the petitions failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>