<?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>2013 (12) TMI 1654 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI BENCH NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196913</link>
    <description>The Bench dismissed the company petition under section 237 seeking the opinion for the initiation of an investigation by the Central Government. It found the petitioners did not qualify under section 237 (b) of the Companies Act as they were not members, creditors, or directly affected by the company&#039;s affairs. The Bench clarified that the accused party must be heard before passing investigation orders, unlike the petitioner&#039;s argument citing a High Court decision under the Competition Act. All pending applications were closed, and no costs were imposed despite the petitioner&#039;s frustration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 1654 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI BENCH NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196913</link>
      <description>The Bench dismissed the company petition under section 237 seeking the opinion for the initiation of an investigation by the Central Government. It found the petitioners did not qualify under section 237 (b) of the Companies Act as they were not members, creditors, or directly affected by the company&#039;s affairs. The Bench clarified that the accused party must be heard before passing investigation orders, unlike the petitioner&#039;s argument citing a High Court decision under the Competition Act. All pending applications were closed, and no costs were imposed despite the petitioner&#039;s frustration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196913</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>