<?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>2012 (4) TMI 92 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211706</link>
    <description>Foreign subscribers were not required to furnish a local address as a condition precedent for incorporation of a private limited company. The Bombay HC found that the Companies Regulations, 1956 and the provisions governing incorporation and filing only permitted authorities to seek rectification of defects or completion of incomplete information, and did not authorise a local-address requirement. The respondent&#039;s reliance on the materials before it was insufficient, and its differential treatment of a similarly placed company already registered in Maharashtra was unjustified. The direction to register and incorporate the company without imposing that condition was therefore granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 92 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211706</link>
      <description>Foreign subscribers were not required to furnish a local address as a condition precedent for incorporation of a private limited company. The Bombay HC found that the Companies Regulations, 1956 and the provisions governing incorporation and filing only permitted authorities to seek rectification of defects or completion of incomplete information, and did not authorise a local-address requirement. The respondent&#039;s reliance on the materials before it was insufficient, and its differential treatment of a similarly placed company already registered in Maharashtra was unjustified. The direction to register and incorporate the company without imposing that condition was therefore granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>