<?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>2009 (5) TMI 531 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112500</link>
    <description>The court upheld the orders directing Indian Bank Mutual Fund and Indian Bank to pay dividend for the financial year 1996-97 to a respondent NGO under a scheme. The petitioners&#039; failure to provide the assured minimum dividend led to the court&#039;s decision, rejecting their arguments regarding registered unit holders and claims relinquishment. SEBI and the Central Government accepted the respondent&#039;s plea, and the court ordered the petitioners to pay the dividend with interest, emphasizing the importance of honoring commitments under the scheme. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to comply within two months.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Nov 2014 22:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 531 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112500</link>
      <description>The court upheld the orders directing Indian Bank Mutual Fund and Indian Bank to pay dividend for the financial year 1996-97 to a respondent NGO under a scheme. The petitioners&#039; failure to provide the assured minimum dividend led to the court&#039;s decision, rejecting their arguments regarding registered unit holders and claims relinquishment. SEBI and the Central Government accepted the respondent&#039;s plea, and the court ordered the petitioners to pay the dividend with interest, emphasizing the importance of honoring commitments under the scheme. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to comply within two months.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>