<?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>2001 (12) TMI 814 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106571</link>
    <description>Section 450(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 permits dispensation of notice before appointing a provisional liquidator only where special reasons are recorded in writing. The text explains that such dispensation was upheld because the company had already been put on notice in regulatory proceedings, had failed to reply in time, and the record showed persistent default, inability to pay debts, and regulatory restrictions. The recorded reasons showed application of mind to the need to protect and preserve assets in the larger public interest and for the benefit of depositors. On that basis, the appointment was treated as consistent with natural justice, and the objection based on non-supply of material was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:35:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 814 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106571</link>
      <description>Section 450(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 permits dispensation of notice before appointing a provisional liquidator only where special reasons are recorded in writing. The text explains that such dispensation was upheld because the company had already been put on notice in regulatory proceedings, had failed to reply in time, and the record showed persistent default, inability to pay debts, and regulatory restrictions. The recorded reasons showed application of mind to the need to protect and preserve assets in the larger public interest and for the benefit of depositors. On that basis, the appointment was treated as consistent with natural justice, and the objection based on non-supply of material was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>