<?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 (6) TMI 140 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343869</link>
    <description>The court dismissed all writ petitions related to illegal sale of TDTA Land, mismanagement in the 4th respondent company, and appointment of a Special Officer for TDTA Company administration. The court held that the Deputy Registrar of Companies had already initiated action against the TDTA and its Directors, addressing the petitioner&#039;s grievances. It deemed the court not the proper forum for the reliefs sought, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies through competent authorities like the Registrar of Companies. The court found no merit in the petitions, stating the issues were already under investigation, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jun 2017 06:22:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 140 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343869</link>
      <description>The court dismissed all writ petitions related to illegal sale of TDTA Land, mismanagement in the 4th respondent company, and appointment of a Special Officer for TDTA Company administration. The court held that the Deputy Registrar of Companies had already initiated action against the TDTA and its Directors, addressing the petitioner&#039;s grievances. It deemed the court not the proper forum for the reliefs sought, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies through competent authorities like the Registrar of Companies. The court found no merit in the petitions, stating the issues were already under investigation, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343869</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>