<?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>1973 (12) TMI 6 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9078</link>
    <description>Company court powers in an amalgamation extend to incidental, consequential or supplemental directions necessary to implement the reconstruction or amalgamation effectively. Applying ejusdem generis, enforcement of a transferor-company&#039;s pre-existing tax liability against the transferee-company is merely a consequence of amalgamation and falls outside that power; the company court cannot issue an executable creditor decree in the amalgamation proceeding. The requested direction was therefore not maintainable and outside the court&#039;s jurisdiction. Article 137 of the Limitation Act, as then construed, did not bar this special-statute application, but rejection of the limitation objection did not affect the failure of the requested relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48115" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (12) TMI 6 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9078</link>
      <description>Company court powers in an amalgamation extend to incidental, consequential or supplemental directions necessary to implement the reconstruction or amalgamation effectively. Applying ejusdem generis, enforcement of a transferor-company&#039;s pre-existing tax liability against the transferee-company is merely a consequence of amalgamation and falls outside that power; the company court cannot issue an executable creditor decree in the amalgamation proceeding. The requested direction was therefore not maintainable and outside the court&#039;s jurisdiction. Article 137 of the Limitation Act, as then construed, did not bar this special-statute application, but rejection of the limitation objection did not affect the failure of the requested relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>