<?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 (9) TMI 768 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108845</link>
    <description>A company that had applied for registration as a non-banking financial company was held to fall within the Reserve Bank of India&#039;s regulatory ambit, as its admitted business activities satisfied the statutory definition and it could not evade regulation after inspection, special audit, and final rejection of registration. The Court also found winding up justified because the record showed repeated default in repaying public deposits, non-compliance with depositor-protective directions, liabilities exceeding realizable assets, no effective prospect of revival, and conduct prejudicial to depositors and the public. The appeals failed and the winding-up order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:01:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 768 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108845</link>
      <description>A company that had applied for registration as a non-banking financial company was held to fall within the Reserve Bank of India&#039;s regulatory ambit, as its admitted business activities satisfied the statutory definition and it could not evade regulation after inspection, special audit, and final rejection of registration. The Court also found winding up justified because the record showed repeated default in repaying public deposits, non-compliance with depositor-protective directions, liabilities exceeding realizable assets, no effective prospect of revival, and conduct prejudicial to depositors and the public. The appeals failed and the winding-up order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>