<?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>1977 (12) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99588</link>
    <description>An official liquidator&#039;s application under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to be subject to limitation. The application, filed more than three years after the winding-up order, remained beyond the period prescribed by article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 even after excluding the time contemplated by section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956. The claim was therefore treated as unenforceable by lapse of time and could not be entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:50:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (12) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99588</link>
      <description>An official liquidator&#039;s application under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to be subject to limitation. The application, filed more than three years after the winding-up order, remained beyond the period prescribed by article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 even after excluding the time contemplated by section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956. The claim was therefore treated as unenforceable by lapse of time and could not be entertained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>