<?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 (4) TMI 465 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109568</link>
    <description>The court set aside the order of the Regional Director under the Companies Act, 1956, directing a company to change its name due to similarity with another company&#039;s trade name. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present their case before the order was issued. The court criticized the haste in disposing of the matter and emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity before depriving a person of rights. The impugned order was overturned, and the court directed a fair enquiry allowing both parties to present arguments without expressing any opinion on the case&#039;s merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:47:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 465 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109568</link>
      <description>The court set aside the order of the Regional Director under the Companies Act, 1956, directing a company to change its name due to similarity with another company&#039;s trade name. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present their case before the order was issued. The court criticized the haste in disposing of the matter and emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity before depriving a person of rights. The impugned order was overturned, and the court directed a fair enquiry allowing both parties to present arguments without expressing any opinion on the case&#039;s merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>