<?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 1037 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352768</link>
    <description>The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata, allowed an appeal against the deletion of Respondent no.7 from a company petition, finding that the Appellants failed to establish a connection between Respondent no.7 and the company named in the petition. The Tribunal held that minor errors in nomenclature should not exclude Respondent no.7 as a party, as evidence linked it to the entity in question. Emphasizing the importance of correctly identifying parties, the Tribunal set aside the deletion order, deeming Respondent no.7 a necessary party and directing expedited proceedings. Costs were imposed on Respondent no.7.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:17:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1037 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352768</link>
      <description>The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata, allowed an appeal against the deletion of Respondent no.7 from a company petition, finding that the Appellants failed to establish a connection between Respondent no.7 and the company named in the petition. The Tribunal held that minor errors in nomenclature should not exclude Respondent no.7 as a party, as evidence linked it to the entity in question. Emphasizing the importance of correctly identifying parties, the Tribunal set aside the deletion order, deeming Respondent no.7 a necessary party and directing expedited proceedings. Costs were imposed on Respondent no.7.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352768</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>