<?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>2002 (8) TMI 561 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106412</link>
    <description>The Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission Systems Act, 1993 vested the power transmission systems in the Central Government and, by legal fiction, in Power Grid Corporation of India. Pending suits, appeals and other proceedings against the named companies were to continue against Power Grid Corporation, so the appellant-company could not insist on deletion from the array of parties. The impugned order did not fasten liability on the appellant or decide whether it was bound to make payment, and its presence on record caused no legal prejudice. The court also noted that retaining the appellant could assist in the winding up proceedings, so the request for deletion was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:01:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 561 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106412</link>
      <description>The Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission Systems Act, 1993 vested the power transmission systems in the Central Government and, by legal fiction, in Power Grid Corporation of India. Pending suits, appeals and other proceedings against the named companies were to continue against Power Grid Corporation, so the appellant-company could not insist on deletion from the array of parties. The impugned order did not fasten liability on the appellant or decide whether it was bound to make payment, and its presence on record caused no legal prejudice. The court also noted that retaining the appellant could assist in the winding up proceedings, so the request for deletion was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>