<?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>1990 (9) TMI 269 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101989</link>
    <description>Acquisition of an industrial undertaking did not render a pending oppression and mismanagement petition infructuous where the company continued to exist and could still receive statutory compensation. The company court retained jurisdiction under sections 397 and 398 to examine commission agreements, mortgages and debenture-related arrangements because those matters could affect the company&#039;s financial structure, compensation distribution and shareholder interests; the Commissioner of Payments had no power to decide the validity of such alleged oppressive or fraudulent arrangements. Impleadment of the Government company vested with the undertaking was allowed, the Commissioner of Payments was not treated as a necessary party, and amendment to include reliefs concerning the Bombay property and debenture trust deed was permitted as necessary for effective adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:19:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 269 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101989</link>
      <description>Acquisition of an industrial undertaking did not render a pending oppression and mismanagement petition infructuous where the company continued to exist and could still receive statutory compensation. The company court retained jurisdiction under sections 397 and 398 to examine commission agreements, mortgages and debenture-related arrangements because those matters could affect the company&#039;s financial structure, compensation distribution and shareholder interests; the Commissioner of Payments had no power to decide the validity of such alleged oppressive or fraudulent arrangements. Impleadment of the Government company vested with the undertaking was allowed, the Commissioner of Payments was not treated as a necessary party, and amendment to include reliefs concerning the Bombay property and debenture trust deed was permitted as necessary for effective adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101989</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>