<?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 (9) TMI 434 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103452</link>
    <description>The petition was allowed, and the Court directed the official liquidator to obtain vacant possession of the tenanted premises for the Company. The tenants were given three months to surrender the premises. The Court emphasized its powers under Sections 391 and 392 of the Companies Act to enforce the revival scheme, highlighting the statutory binding nature of court-sanctioned schemes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:20:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 434 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103452</link>
      <description>The petition was allowed, and the Court directed the official liquidator to obtain vacant possession of the tenanted premises for the Company. The tenants were given three months to surrender the premises. The Court emphasized its powers under Sections 391 and 392 of the Companies Act to enforce the revival scheme, highlighting the statutory binding nature of court-sanctioned schemes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>