<?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>1998 (1) TMI 397 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103572</link>
    <description>A civil court may examine the legality of a board resolution authorising a reference to BIFR where the challenge alleges fraud, device, stratagem, or other mala fide conduct, despite the statutory bar on injunctions. On the facts discussed, the short notice for the board meeting was not shown to be unreasonable, and the materials did not establish prima facie illegality, interested-director disqualification, or fraud. Questions concerning industrial sickness, accounting treatment, and rehabilitation were treated as matters for the statutory forum, so interim restraint against making the reference was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:34:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 397 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103572</link>
      <description>A civil court may examine the legality of a board resolution authorising a reference to BIFR where the challenge alleges fraud, device, stratagem, or other mala fide conduct, despite the statutory bar on injunctions. On the facts discussed, the short notice for the board meeting was not shown to be unreasonable, and the materials did not establish prima facie illegality, interested-director disqualification, or fraud. Questions concerning industrial sickness, accounting treatment, and rehabilitation were treated as matters for the statutory forum, so interim restraint against making the reference was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>