<?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>2004 (12) TMI 390 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110297</link>
    <description>Rule 591 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 prescribes a percentage-based scale for the Court Receiver&#039;s remuneration, and any reduction is an exceptional departure to be made only in appropriate cases. The Court held that the Chamber Judge&#039;s discretion cannot be exercised routinely or by reassessing the Receiver&#039;s actual work on a case-by-case basis. Because the Receiver functions within the High Court&#039;s institutional framework, authorities on private receivers were distinguished. No abnormal or extraordinary circumstances were shown, and the company&#039;s BIFR status and rehabilitation needs were not sufficient grounds to interfere with the prescribed fees and commission. Reduction was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:45:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147313" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 390 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110297</link>
      <description>Rule 591 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 prescribes a percentage-based scale for the Court Receiver&#039;s remuneration, and any reduction is an exceptional departure to be made only in appropriate cases. The Court held that the Chamber Judge&#039;s discretion cannot be exercised routinely or by reassessing the Receiver&#039;s actual work on a case-by-case basis. Because the Receiver functions within the High Court&#039;s institutional framework, authorities on private receivers were distinguished. No abnormal or extraordinary circumstances were shown, and the company&#039;s BIFR status and rehabilitation needs were not sufficient grounds to interfere with the prescribed fees and commission. Reduction was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>