<?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>2009 (2) TMI 820 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176474</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the suit challenging the Board resolution seeking nullity and permanent injunction, finding it frivolous and lacking legal basis. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay heavy costs of &amp;amp;8377; 50,000/- to the defendants, with the Court deeming the suit as motivated by self-interest and without proper rights to retain possession of the company&#039;s property. The Court concluded that the resolution was not in violation of the Companies Act, and the plaintiffs&#039; actions were unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:50:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 820 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176474</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the suit challenging the Board resolution seeking nullity and permanent injunction, finding it frivolous and lacking legal basis. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay heavy costs of &amp;amp;8377; 50,000/- to the defendants, with the Court deeming the suit as motivated by self-interest and without proper rights to retain possession of the company&#039;s property. The Court concluded that the resolution was not in violation of the Companies Act, and the plaintiffs&#039; actions were unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>