<?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>1978 (4) TMI 160 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99569</link>
    <description>A company&#039;s principal object had failed where its main undertaking ceased and the remaining activities were only incidental or outside the memorandum, so the substratum was treated as gone and winding up was justified on just and equitable grounds. Only lawful business within the memorandum or statute could be counted for assessing suspension of business; unauthorised ultra vires activities could not prevent a finding that the company had suspended its business for the relevant period. Prior notice and consideration of the company&#039;s representation were sufficient for sanction to file the petition, and no procedural defect was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:05:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (4) TMI 160 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99569</link>
      <description>A company&#039;s principal object had failed where its main undertaking ceased and the remaining activities were only incidental or outside the memorandum, so the substratum was treated as gone and winding up was justified on just and equitable grounds. Only lawful business within the memorandum or statute could be counted for assessing suspension of business; unauthorised ultra vires activities could not prevent a finding that the company had suspended its business for the relevant period. Prior notice and consideration of the company&#039;s representation were sufficient for sanction to file the petition, and no procedural defect was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>