<?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 (1) TMI 171 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99993</link>
    <description>Section 237 of the Companies Act, 1956 permits a court-directed investigation only where the materials disclose a prima facie case warranting judicial intervention in the interests of the company as a whole. On the facts discussed, alleged foreign exchange violations, non-resident shareholding, the 1976 raid, and asserted prejudice from rival business interests did not establish that threshold. The appointment of a foreign national as managing director was not shown to be unlawful when made, permission had been sought for non-resident participation, and no continuing violation was proved. Matters arising from the raid were already under enforcement or adjudication, and the allegation of business harm remained unproved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:06:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (1) TMI 171 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99993</link>
      <description>Section 237 of the Companies Act, 1956 permits a court-directed investigation only where the materials disclose a prima facie case warranting judicial intervention in the interests of the company as a whole. On the facts discussed, alleged foreign exchange violations, non-resident shareholding, the 1976 raid, and asserted prejudice from rival business interests did not establish that threshold. The appointment of a foreign national as managing director was not shown to be unlawful when made, permission had been sought for non-resident participation, and no continuing violation was proved. Matters arising from the raid were already under enforcement or adjudication, and the allegation of business harm remained unproved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>