<?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 (11) TMI 792 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105009</link>
    <description>An alteration in a chit agreement that changes only the auction venue is registrable even if the new place lies outside the territorial jurisdiction of the original registrar. The change does not amount to opening a new place of business within section 19 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, and the Act and rules disclose no prohibition on holding the auction outside the registering authority&#039;s area. Because the chit was already registered within that jurisdiction, the registrar retained supervisory control under section 16(3) and could not refuse registration of the alteration solely on territorial grounds. The objection to registration was therefore unsustainable, and the change in auction place had to be registered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:40:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 792 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105009</link>
      <description>An alteration in a chit agreement that changes only the auction venue is registrable even if the new place lies outside the territorial jurisdiction of the original registrar. The change does not amount to opening a new place of business within section 19 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, and the Act and rules disclose no prohibition on holding the auction outside the registering authority&#039;s area. Because the chit was already registered within that jurisdiction, the registrar retained supervisory control under section 16(3) and could not refuse registration of the alteration solely on territorial grounds. The objection to registration was therefore unsustainable, and the change in auction place had to be registered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>