<?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>1997 (5) TMI 342 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103418</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench&#039;s judgment and reinstating the Single Judge&#039;s decision to dismiss the writ petition. The Court emphasized the importance of utilizing statutory remedies provided under the Companies Act before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The first respondent was directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000 to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 342 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103418</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench&#039;s judgment and reinstating the Single Judge&#039;s decision to dismiss the writ petition. The Court emphasized the importance of utilizing statutory remedies provided under the Companies Act before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The first respondent was directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000 to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>