<?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 (11) TMI 258 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101165</link>
    <description>Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as a valid penal provision regulating company affairs by prohibiting wrongful withholding of company property, and its reach extended to immovable property under Parliament&#039;s legislative competence. A claim of tenancy, asserted after employment ended, was found insufficient on the facts to defeat the complaint, and the pendency of a declaratory suit did not justify staying or quashing the criminal proceedings. Suppression of an earlier withdrawn petition was viewed as a material lapse, but it was not the decisive basis for disposal because the petition lacked merit in any event.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:50:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (11) TMI 258 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101165</link>
      <description>Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as a valid penal provision regulating company affairs by prohibiting wrongful withholding of company property, and its reach extended to immovable property under Parliament&#039;s legislative competence. A claim of tenancy, asserted after employment ended, was found insufficient on the facts to defeat the complaint, and the pendency of a declaratory suit did not justify staying or quashing the criminal proceedings. Suppression of an earlier withdrawn petition was viewed as a material lapse, but it was not the decisive basis for disposal because the petition lacked merit in any event.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101165</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>