<?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 (6) TMI 151 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99673</link>
    <description>A banking company&#039;s substratum is lost where it transfers its banking undertaking and thereafter conducts no substantive business within its statutory objects. Retaining transfer consideration at call or short notice does not constitute an independent business contemplated by its memorandum or the Banking Regulation Act. Proposed non-banking activities or alterations to the company&#039;s name and objects do not negate the loss of the main object, particularly where the proposed resolutions do not prima facie meet requirements for special notice and explanatory statements. On these principles, winding up on just and equitable grounds may proceed and is not rendered an abuse of process by such proposed alterations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:35:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136725" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (6) TMI 151 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99673</link>
      <description>A banking company&#039;s substratum is lost where it transfers its banking undertaking and thereafter conducts no substantive business within its statutory objects. Retaining transfer consideration at call or short notice does not constitute an independent business contemplated by its memorandum or the Banking Regulation Act. Proposed non-banking activities or alterations to the company&#039;s name and objects do not negate the loss of the main object, particularly where the proposed resolutions do not prima facie meet requirements for special notice and explanatory statements. On these principles, winding up on just and equitable grounds may proceed and is not rendered an abuse of process by such proposed alterations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99673</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>