<?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>2013 (5) TMI 347 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233762</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed RLB&#039;s application regarding the Scheme of Arrangement, ruling that Turner was not obligated to provide decryption codes for the transfer of the distribution network. The Court also rejected RLB&#039;s alternative prayer for winding up, reserving the right to seek such relief in the future. RLB was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 20,000 to Turner within four weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 347 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233762</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed RLB&#039;s application regarding the Scheme of Arrangement, ruling that Turner was not obligated to provide decryption codes for the transfer of the distribution network. The Court also rejected RLB&#039;s alternative prayer for winding up, reserving the right to seek such relief in the future. RLB was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 20,000 to Turner within four weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>