<?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>2010 (4) TMI 899 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126992</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the petition seeking restoration of a company&#039;s name to the Register of Companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The company failed to meet the minimum paid-up share capital requirement of Rs. 1 lakh as mandated by law and chose to have its name struck off instead of increasing the share capital within the specified period. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions must be upheld, rejecting arguments for equity to override legal requirements and preventing potential abuse of the legal framework. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the importance of aligning equity with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 899 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126992</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the petition seeking restoration of a company&#039;s name to the Register of Companies under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The company failed to meet the minimum paid-up share capital requirement of Rs. 1 lakh as mandated by law and chose to have its name struck off instead of increasing the share capital within the specified period. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions must be upheld, rejecting arguments for equity to override legal requirements and preventing potential abuse of the legal framework. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the importance of aligning equity with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>