<?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>1969 (1) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98583</link>
    <description>The court quashed the Company Law Board&#039;s order directing an investigation into the petitioner-company&#039;s affairs under Section 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court found that the grounds cited for the investigation did not indicate fraud or misconduct. It held that the Board did not properly consider relevant material and failed to meet the conditions precedent for forming the required opinion under Section 237(b). The court also upheld the delegation of power to the Board and rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 237(b)(ii). The respondents were restrained from enforcing the order, and costs were awarded to the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:22:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (1) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98583</link>
      <description>The court quashed the Company Law Board&#039;s order directing an investigation into the petitioner-company&#039;s affairs under Section 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court found that the grounds cited for the investigation did not indicate fraud or misconduct. It held that the Board did not properly consider relevant material and failed to meet the conditions precedent for forming the required opinion under Section 237(b). The court also upheld the delegation of power to the Board and rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 237(b)(ii). The respondents were restrained from enforcing the order, and costs were awarded to the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>