<?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>2017 (12) TMI 510 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352241</link>
    <description>The Court concluded that Section 124(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 does not lead to a statutory vesting of property but transfers shares to the IEPF for safekeeping. The Court highlighted the importance of compliance with notification and procedural requirements, emphasizing the need for the Central Government to publicize share transfers and simplify the reclamation process. The petition was dismissed, with no additional orders or directions issued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 07:43:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 510 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352241</link>
      <description>The Court concluded that Section 124(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 does not lead to a statutory vesting of property but transfers shares to the IEPF for safekeeping. The Court highlighted the importance of compliance with notification and procedural requirements, emphasizing the need for the Central Government to publicize share transfers and simplify the reclamation process. The petition was dismissed, with no additional orders or directions issued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>