<?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>2006 (10) TMI 230 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111326</link>
    <description>The court held that the amendment to section 111A(3) of the Companies Act, effective from 15-1-1997, could not be applied retrospectively. The statutory remedy for rectification introduced by the amendment was subject to the prescribed limitation period, and the common law remedy remained available for violations occurring before the amendment. The appeals were allowed, and the order of the Company Law Board was reversed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:36:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 230 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111326</link>
      <description>The court held that the amendment to section 111A(3) of the Companies Act, effective from 15-1-1997, could not be applied retrospectively. The statutory remedy for rectification introduced by the amendment was subject to the prescribed limitation period, and the common law remedy remained available for violations occurring before the amendment. The appeals were allowed, and the order of the Company Law Board was reversed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>