<?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>1989 (3) TMI 342 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101894</link>
    <description>A corporate body is not a lawful appointee as receiver of a vessel in interlocutory proceedings under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, and that appointment was therefore unsustainable. Where the articles of association named the managing director for the relevant managerial role, the court substituted that individual as receiver and directed continuation of the existing management and accounts arrangements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:41:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (3) TMI 342 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101894</link>
      <description>A corporate body is not a lawful appointee as receiver of a vessel in interlocutory proceedings under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, and that appointment was therefore unsustainable. Where the articles of association named the managing director for the relevant managerial role, the court substituted that individual as receiver and directed continuation of the existing management and accounts arrangements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101894</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>