<?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 (7) TMI 573 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109622</link>
    <description>Section 450(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 gives a Provisional Liquidator the same powers as a liquidator unless the Court limits those powers by order. The applicants failed to show mala fides, misuse of power, misappropriation, or any material basis to recall the appointment or curtail authority. Actions taken by the Provisional Liquidator under Court supervision were found lawful and directed to protecting the company&#039;s assets and creditors&#039; interests. Mere hardship to small depositors was held insufficient to justify interference under section 466, and the request to recall, stay, or restrict the appointment was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:00:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 573 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109622</link>
      <description>Section 450(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 gives a Provisional Liquidator the same powers as a liquidator unless the Court limits those powers by order. The applicants failed to show mala fides, misuse of power, misappropriation, or any material basis to recall the appointment or curtail authority. Actions taken by the Provisional Liquidator under Court supervision were found lawful and directed to protecting the company&#039;s assets and creditors&#039; interests. Mere hardship to small depositors was held insufficient to justify interference under section 466, and the request to recall, stay, or restrict the appointment was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>