<?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 (11) TMI 655 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108566</link>
    <description>Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed broadly enough to permit a duly constituted multi-State co-operative bank to register as a joint stock banking company when the statutory requirements were met. The certificate of incorporation issued on conversion was treated as conclusive evidence of compliance with the incorporation conditions, so the validity of the new company could not be challenged merely by attacking the certificate. On conversion and statutory vesting, the earlier co-operative society ceased to survive as an existing entity, and the court refused discretionary writ relief because settled rights, passage of time, and third-party interests would be disturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:32:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 655 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108566</link>
      <description>Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed broadly enough to permit a duly constituted multi-State co-operative bank to register as a joint stock banking company when the statutory requirements were met. The certificate of incorporation issued on conversion was treated as conclusive evidence of compliance with the incorporation conditions, so the validity of the new company could not be challenged merely by attacking the certificate. On conversion and statutory vesting, the earlier co-operative society ceased to survive as an existing entity, and the court refused discretionary writ relief because settled rights, passage of time, and third-party interests would be disturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>