<?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>1991 (5) TMI 202 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102036</link>
    <description>A petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, concerned oppression and mismanagement, and allegations against a deceased director did not by themselves make his heirs necessary parties. Section 543 was a separate winding-up remedy requiring a distinct prayer for repayment, restoration or compensation, so a mere reference to that provision did not justify impleading legal representatives. However, where the petition expressly sought relief under section 402 that could affect the deceased director&#039;s estate or heirs, they were entitled to be heard before any order was made. Excluding them in that situation would offend natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:57:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (5) TMI 202 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102036</link>
      <description>A petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, concerned oppression and mismanagement, and allegations against a deceased director did not by themselves make his heirs necessary parties. Section 543 was a separate winding-up remedy requiring a distinct prayer for repayment, restoration or compensation, so a mere reference to that provision did not justify impleading legal representatives. However, where the petition expressly sought relief under section 402 that could affect the deceased director&#039;s estate or heirs, they were entitled to be heard before any order was made. Excluding them in that situation would offend natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>