<?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>1965 (4) TMI 105 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157689</link>
    <description>A statutory tribunal proceeding under the Life Insurance Corporation Act was not subject to leave under section 446 of the Companies Act because the special Act conferred exclusive jurisdiction and barred civil court interference. Section 44(a) did not exclude the company from the Act merely because a winding-up order was made later; applicability had to be assessed when the statutory transfer took effect. The alleged transfer from the life fund to the general department was not treated as a genuine loan or a transaction for consideration, since the record showed it was effectively an addition to the life fund and lacked a proper actuarial or lawful basis for repayment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174712" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (4) TMI 105 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157689</link>
      <description>A statutory tribunal proceeding under the Life Insurance Corporation Act was not subject to leave under section 446 of the Companies Act because the special Act conferred exclusive jurisdiction and barred civil court interference. Section 44(a) did not exclude the company from the Act merely because a winding-up order was made later; applicability had to be assessed when the statutory transfer took effect. The alleged transfer from the life fund to the general department was not treated as a genuine loan or a transaction for consideration, since the record showed it was effectively an addition to the life fund and lacked a proper actuarial or lawful basis for repayment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>