<?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>1994 (4) TMI 285 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103222</link>
    <description>Maintainability objections under section 399(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be conclusively decided without proper enquiry where the record raises disputed issues of consent, the link between draft and filed petitions, disputed signatures, and the authority of the person presenting the petition. The High Court held that such matters involve substantial questions of fact and should be examined by the statutory forum rather than finally determined on a summary record. The orders rejecting the petition under sections 397, 398 and 402 at the threshold were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Company Law Board for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:13:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 285 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103222</link>
      <description>Maintainability objections under section 399(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be conclusively decided without proper enquiry where the record raises disputed issues of consent, the link between draft and filed petitions, disputed signatures, and the authority of the person presenting the petition. The High Court held that such matters involve substantial questions of fact and should be examined by the statutory forum rather than finally determined on a summary record. The orders rejecting the petition under sections 397, 398 and 402 at the threshold were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Company Law Board for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>