<?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 (3) TMI 1459 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213407</link>
    <description>Section 13(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 allows the BIFR and AAIFR to permit participation by persons interested in the subject matter of the proceeding, applying a real-interest test rather than the strict impleadment standard under the Code of Civil Procedure. A shareholder claiming an interest in a company under BIFR/AAIFR proceedings may be heard where the proceedings concern winding up or revival and the person seeks to place an alternative rehabilitation proposal before the forum. On the stated facts, the applicant was found to have sufficient interest and was rightly impleaded, so writ interference was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1459 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213407</link>
      <description>Section 13(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 allows the BIFR and AAIFR to permit participation by persons interested in the subject matter of the proceeding, applying a real-interest test rather than the strict impleadment standard under the Code of Civil Procedure. A shareholder claiming an interest in a company under BIFR/AAIFR proceedings may be heard where the proceedings concern winding up or revival and the person seeks to place an alternative rehabilitation proposal before the forum. On the stated facts, the applicant was found to have sufficient interest and was rightly impleaded, so writ interference was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>