<?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 (2) TMI 390 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110645</link>
    <description>A quasi-judicial authority must give effect to a final High Court declaration between the same parties and cannot proceed on a contrary basis once that declaration is brought to its notice. The earlier writ order had held that deletion of the word &quot;Private&quot; from the company&#039;s name occurred by operation of law under the Companies Act and not by any voluntary act. The appellate order nevertheless assumed a need for prior permission and liability to pay unearned profit without findings of assignment, under-letting, or transfer. This was treated as wilful disobedience and contempt, although the unconditional apology was accepted, costs were imposed, and the matter was closed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:36:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 390 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110645</link>
      <description>A quasi-judicial authority must give effect to a final High Court declaration between the same parties and cannot proceed on a contrary basis once that declaration is brought to its notice. The earlier writ order had held that deletion of the word &quot;Private&quot; from the company&#039;s name occurred by operation of law under the Companies Act and not by any voluntary act. The appellate order nevertheless assumed a need for prior permission and liability to pay unearned profit without findings of assignment, under-letting, or transfer. This was treated as wilful disobedience and contempt, although the unconditional apology was accepted, costs were imposed, and the matter was closed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>