<?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>1967 (9) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98456</link>
    <description>Under section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956, a party is a person interested in disclaimer proceedings only if directly and substantially affected; a mere commercial or indirect interest is insufficient, so the corporation was not a necessary party. Requests for time to pay were treated as extensions, not a written application requiring a disclaimer decision, and section 535(4) was not attracted; the liquidator was therefore not barred from seeking disclaimer. The share allotment contract was found onerous because it yielded no benefit, involved unquoted shares, and exposed the estate to future liability. Leave to disclaim was accordingly justified to protect creditors and facilitate winding up.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:02:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (9) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98456</link>
      <description>Under section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956, a party is a person interested in disclaimer proceedings only if directly and substantially affected; a mere commercial or indirect interest is insufficient, so the corporation was not a necessary party. Requests for time to pay were treated as extensions, not a written application requiring a disclaimer decision, and section 535(4) was not attracted; the liquidator was therefore not barred from seeking disclaimer. The share allotment contract was found onerous because it yielded no benefit, involved unquoted shares, and exposed the estate to future liability. Leave to disclaim was accordingly justified to protect creditors and facilitate winding up.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>