<?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 (12) TMI 249 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102325</link>
    <description>An application by an official liquidator under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 for misfeasance or breach of trust is subject to the limitation period in that provision, and the additional year under Section 458A does not apply because such an application is not made in the name and on behalf of the company. The court treated Section 543 as a special remedy brought by the liquidator in his own right for the company&#039;s benefit, so the extended limitation reserved for suits and applications by or on behalf of the company was unavailable. An amendment to the cause-title did not change that legal position, and the claim for compensation was therefore time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:55:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (12) TMI 249 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102325</link>
      <description>An application by an official liquidator under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 for misfeasance or breach of trust is subject to the limitation period in that provision, and the additional year under Section 458A does not apply because such an application is not made in the name and on behalf of the company. The court treated Section 543 as a special remedy brought by the liquidator in his own right for the company&#039;s benefit, so the extended limitation reserved for suits and applications by or on behalf of the company was unavailable. An amendment to the cause-title did not change that legal position, and the claim for compensation was therefore time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>