<?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>1999 (1) TMI 422 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104077</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Company Law Board&#039;s decision, ruling that the appellant&#039;s appeal was not maintainable under section 111(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and was also barred by time. The court emphasized the importance of meeting the legal requirements for filing appeals and clarified the scope of &#039;aggrieved person&#039; in the context of company law proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 422 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104077</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Company Law Board&#039;s decision, ruling that the appellant&#039;s appeal was not maintainable under section 111(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and was also barred by time. The court emphasized the importance of meeting the legal requirements for filing appeals and clarified the scope of &#039;aggrieved person&#039; in the context of company law proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>