<?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>2000 (2) TMI 849 - Company Law Board, New Delhi</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193500</link>
    <description>Proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 do not extend to deciding a private contractual dispute over a sponsorship agreement, especially where parallel civil suits are pending; that controversy was left to civil proceedings. Allegations of non-issue of notices and other oppressive conduct were not investigated in depth, but limited preventive directions were issued to secure future participation rights: notices of general body meetings were to be sent by registered post, and where the petitioner had nominees on the board, board meeting notices with agendas were to be sent at least seven days in advance. A fresh investigation was refused because existing proceedings by public authorities made inquiry duplicative and the allegations lacked sufficient particulars.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 11:24:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 849 - Company Law Board, New Delhi</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193500</link>
      <description>Proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 do not extend to deciding a private contractual dispute over a sponsorship agreement, especially where parallel civil suits are pending; that controversy was left to civil proceedings. Allegations of non-issue of notices and other oppressive conduct were not investigated in depth, but limited preventive directions were issued to secure future participation rights: notices of general body meetings were to be sent by registered post, and where the petitioner had nominees on the board, board meeting notices with agendas were to be sent at least seven days in advance. A fresh investigation was refused because existing proceedings by public authorities made inquiry duplicative and the allegations lacked sufficient particulars.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>