<?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 (10) TMI 650 - Company Law Board, Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217712</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the status quo order regarding shareholding patterns but did not grant immunity to the petitioner from legal provisions governing directorial duties. The Board ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the need for proper treatment of leave requests and adherence to natural justice principles in determining directorial status. The application was posted for further proceedings with the main petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191087" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 650 - Company Law Board, Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217712</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the status quo order regarding shareholding patterns but did not grant immunity to the petitioner from legal provisions governing directorial duties. The Board ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the need for proper treatment of leave requests and adherence to natural justice principles in determining directorial status. The application was posted for further proceedings with the main petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>