<?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>2016 (6) TMI 218 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328509</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the CLB&#039;s decision to reject a petition under Section 235 of the Companies Act, 1956, as the appellants failed to meet the statutory threshold of holding 10% of the total voting power. The court found the alleged irregularities were already known and documented, emphasizing that Section 235 is not for inquiries based on known facts. It suggested that the appellants pursue relief under Sections 397 and 398 for oppression and mismanagement issues. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2016 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 218 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328509</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the CLB&#039;s decision to reject a petition under Section 235 of the Companies Act, 1956, as the appellants failed to meet the statutory threshold of holding 10% of the total voting power. The court found the alleged irregularities were already known and documented, emphasizing that Section 235 is not for inquiries based on known facts. It suggested that the appellants pursue relief under Sections 397 and 398 for oppression and mismanagement issues. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>