<?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>1981 (12) TMI 174 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195044</link>
    <description>The court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, remitting the matter back to the lower court for reconsideration. It emphasized the necessity of notifying the Official Liquidator about the assignment of the decree to ensure legality and protect shareholders&#039; interests. Both parties were directed to present evidence, with notice requirements under Section 531(A) of the Companies Act and Order 21, Rule 16 of the CPC highlighted. No costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:28:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (12) TMI 174 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195044</link>
      <description>The court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, remitting the matter back to the lower court for reconsideration. It emphasized the necessity of notifying the Official Liquidator about the assignment of the decree to ensure legality and protect shareholders&#039; interests. Both parties were directed to present evidence, with notice requirements under Section 531(A) of the Companies Act and Order 21, Rule 16 of the CPC highlighted. No costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>