<?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>2003 (11) TMI 334 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108346</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had locus standi, the Company Law Board had the power to compound the offence without court permission, and the order was not a non-speaking order. The appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:10:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 334 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108346</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had locus standi, the Company Law Board had the power to compound the offence without court permission, and the order was not a non-speaking order. The appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>