<?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>2008 (2) TMI 922 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193939</link>
    <description>The Company Law Board found various grievances unsubstantiated, including non-sending of notices for general meetings and non-appraising company affairs. The Board directed the appointment of a chartered accountant to scrutinize financial transactions, ordered reimbursement of diverted funds, and instructed the company to maintain statutory records and send meeting notices by registered post. Illegal actions, such as treating company assets as personal and unauthorized sale attempts, were deemed oppressive. The Board dismissed challenges to share transfers and allotments due to lack of specifics and delayed complaints. Overall, the main petition and related applications were disposed of without costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:15:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 922 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193939</link>
      <description>The Company Law Board found various grievances unsubstantiated, including non-sending of notices for general meetings and non-appraising company affairs. The Board directed the appointment of a chartered accountant to scrutinize financial transactions, ordered reimbursement of diverted funds, and instructed the company to maintain statutory records and send meeting notices by registered post. Illegal actions, such as treating company assets as personal and unauthorized sale attempts, were deemed oppressive. The Board dismissed challenges to share transfers and allotments due to lack of specifics and delayed complaints. Overall, the main petition and related applications were disposed of without costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193939</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>