<?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>1976 (10) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99460</link>
    <description>A saving clause preserving pending proceedings continued the court&#039;s jurisdiction over ancillary steps in an application to revive an order confirming alteration of a company&#039;s memorandum, despite transfer of powers under the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1974. The court held that the amended scheme did not create a lacuna or transfer to the Company Law Board power to revive the court&#039;s own order. It also applied a liberal approach to &quot;sufficient cause&quot;, finding that misplacement of the certified copy and counsel&#039;s failure to file it after receipt justified revival of the lapsed order and extension of time for filing the requisite documents with the Registrar, subject to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:37:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (10) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99460</link>
      <description>A saving clause preserving pending proceedings continued the court&#039;s jurisdiction over ancillary steps in an application to revive an order confirming alteration of a company&#039;s memorandum, despite transfer of powers under the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1974. The court held that the amended scheme did not create a lacuna or transfer to the Company Law Board power to revive the court&#039;s own order. It also applied a liberal approach to &quot;sufficient cause&quot;, finding that misplacement of the certified copy and counsel&#039;s failure to file it after receipt justified revival of the lapsed order and extension of time for filing the requisite documents with the Registrar, subject to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>