<?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>1988 (11) TMI 299 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101664</link>
    <description>The court addressed an application under section 456 read with section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking restoration of possession to the official liquidator. The court clarified that section 468 is not the appropriate remedy if the official liquidator&#039;s possession is disturbed, directing the official liquidator to approach the District Magistrate under section 456 for resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:55:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138713" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (11) TMI 299 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101664</link>
      <description>The court addressed an application under section 456 read with section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking restoration of possession to the official liquidator. The court clarified that section 468 is not the appropriate remedy if the official liquidator&#039;s possession is disturbed, directing the official liquidator to approach the District Magistrate under section 456 for resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>