<?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>2010 (8) TMI 1088 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195589</link>
    <description>The High Court set aside the Company Law Board&#039;s order, ruling that the first respondent must establish his membership to maintain the petition under Sections 397 and 398. The court granted the first respondent twelve weeks to challenge the alleged fraudulent transfer of shares. Failure to do so within the given timeframe will result in the dismissal of the Company Petition. The appeals were partly allowed under these conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2017 16:58:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 1088 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195589</link>
      <description>The High Court set aside the Company Law Board&#039;s order, ruling that the first respondent must establish his membership to maintain the petition under Sections 397 and 398. The court granted the first respondent twelve weeks to challenge the alleged fraudulent transfer of shares. Failure to do so within the given timeframe will result in the dismissal of the Company Petition. The appeals were partly allowed under these conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>