<?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>1980 (4) TMI 262 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99913</link>
    <description>The court quashed the order issued by the Company Law Board under Section 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, as the circumstances cited were found to be speculative, vague, and unsupported by specific facts. The court emphasized the need for objectively demonstrable circumstances to justify such orders, following precedents set in earlier cases. Consequently, the appointment of inspectors to investigate the company&#039;s affairs was annulled, and the petitioner was awarded costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:47:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (4) TMI 262 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99913</link>
      <description>The court quashed the order issued by the Company Law Board under Section 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, as the circumstances cited were found to be speculative, vague, and unsupported by specific facts. The court emphasized the need for objectively demonstrable circumstances to justify such orders, following precedents set in earlier cases. Consequently, the appointment of inspectors to investigate the company&#039;s affairs was annulled, and the petitioner was awarded costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99913</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>