<?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 (1) TMI 492 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114036</link>
    <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not bar a landlord&#039;s suit for possession and recovery of money against a sick company. A proceeding for eviction or a similar claim under rent control legislation remains maintainable, and prior permission of the Board is not required for such a suit. The stay order granted on the basis that Board permission was necessary was contrary to settled law and could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 10:45:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 492 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114036</link>
      <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not bar a landlord&#039;s suit for possession and recovery of money against a sick company. A proceeding for eviction or a similar claim under rent control legislation remains maintainable, and prior permission of the Board is not required for such a suit. The stay order granted on the basis that Board permission was necessary was contrary to settled law and could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>