<?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>1984 (3) TMI 322 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101091</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the legality of the Government of India&#039;s order and notification under the Companies Act. It upheld the appointment of an inspector to investigate the company&#039;s affairs, finding no issue with the inspector seeking assistance. The court ruled that the Central Government did not violate section 241(2)(a) by not providing the complete inspector&#039;s report. It justified the Company Law Board&#039;s decision to withhold approval for reappointment of whole-time directors due to ongoing investigations. The court also supported the Board&#039;s decision to launch criminal complaints, stating the petitioners would have the opportunity to defend themselves in court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:53:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138141" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (3) TMI 322 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101091</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the legality of the Government of India&#039;s order and notification under the Companies Act. It upheld the appointment of an inspector to investigate the company&#039;s affairs, finding no issue with the inspector seeking assistance. The court ruled that the Central Government did not violate section 241(2)(a) by not providing the complete inspector&#039;s report. It justified the Company Law Board&#039;s decision to withhold approval for reappointment of whole-time directors due to ongoing investigations. The court also supported the Board&#039;s decision to launch criminal complaints, stating the petitioners would have the opportunity to defend themselves in court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101091</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>