<?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>1983 (5) TMI 197 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101016</link>
    <description>The Companies Act, 1956 was construed as distinguishing Indian-incorporated companies from foreign companies, and section 565(1)(b) was read with the definition of &quot;company&quot; and the separate treatment of foreign companies. On that construction, the provision did not give a foreign company incorporated outside India any right to register under Part IX, because registration under the Act was confined to entities within the statutory scheme of companies capable of registration. A foreign company therefore retained its separate identity and did not become a company under the Act merely by registration; the challenge to refusal of registration failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:55:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (5) TMI 197 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101016</link>
      <description>The Companies Act, 1956 was construed as distinguishing Indian-incorporated companies from foreign companies, and section 565(1)(b) was read with the definition of &quot;company&quot; and the separate treatment of foreign companies. On that construction, the provision did not give a foreign company incorporated outside India any right to register under Part IX, because registration under the Act was confined to entities within the statutory scheme of companies capable of registration. A foreign company therefore retained its separate identity and did not become a company under the Act merely by registration; the challenge to refusal of registration failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>