<?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>2011 (1) TMI 1202 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213382</link>
    <description>The Companies Act definition of &quot;company&quot; was read into the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to mean a company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956; a foreign company registered under section 591(2) was not included. The wider definition in section 34 was treated as confined to that provision and not extended to sections 15 to 19. On that basis, the Act was held inapplicable to a foreign company and the reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction was invalid. The writ petition by an unsecured creditor was also held not maintainable because the petitioner lacked a present enforceable right in the scheme proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 10:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1202 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213382</link>
      <description>The Companies Act definition of &quot;company&quot; was read into the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to mean a company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956; a foreign company registered under section 591(2) was not included. The wider definition in section 34 was treated as confined to that provision and not extended to sections 15 to 19. On that basis, the Act was held inapplicable to a foreign company and the reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction was invalid. The writ petition by an unsecured creditor was also held not maintainable because the petitioner lacked a present enforceable right in the scheme proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>