<?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>2004 (3) TMI 744 - Company Law Board</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170966</link>
    <description>The CLB held that it has the power to condone the delay under the Limitation Act, found the delay justifiable, and directed the respondents to file a counter in the Company Petition. Applications in CA No. 125 &amp;amp; 127 of 2003 were disposed of without any order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:03:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 744 - Company Law Board</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170966</link>
      <description>The CLB held that it has the power to condone the delay under the Limitation Act, found the delay justifiable, and directed the respondents to file a counter in the Company Petition. Applications in CA No. 125 &amp;amp; 127 of 2003 were disposed of without any order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>