<?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>2017 (5) TMI 1274 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343536</link>
    <description>A company&#039;s first and paramount lien under its Articles of Association bound shareholders and permitted enforcement against shares for debts due from a shareholder. The Tribunal upheld cancellation of the shareholder&#039;s shares under the relevant Articles, finding no demonstrated lack of corporate authority to exercise the lien. Lien notices sent to the registered address were returned marked &quot;door locked&quot;; the returned covers evidenced an attempt to notify the shareholder. The shareholder&#039;s assertion of non-receipt did not displace the cancellation, particularly because the challenge was not made promptly after the cancellation was disclosed. The Company Petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1274 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343536</link>
      <description>A company&#039;s first and paramount lien under its Articles of Association bound shareholders and permitted enforcement against shares for debts due from a shareholder. The Tribunal upheld cancellation of the shareholder&#039;s shares under the relevant Articles, finding no demonstrated lack of corporate authority to exercise the lien. Lien notices sent to the registered address were returned marked &quot;door locked&quot;; the returned covers evidenced an attempt to notify the shareholder. The shareholder&#039;s assertion of non-receipt did not displace the cancellation, particularly because the challenge was not made promptly after the cancellation was disclosed. The Company Petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>