<?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>2005 (10) TMI 573 - COMPANY LAW BOARD , CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197975</link>
    <description>The case involved issues regarding the issuance of 9,000 equity shares to the fifth respondent without proper consideration and the sale of the company&#039;s properties without member approval. The Company Law Board (CLB) held that the claim regarding the shares issued in 1976 should be pursued in a competent court, not under Sections 397 and 398. The CLB directed that the sale of the company&#039;s properties must comply with the Kerala High Court&#039;s order, requiring general body approval and ensuring the best possible price, without prejudice to the rights of financial institutions and statutory authorities. All interim orders were vacated, and no costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2018 11:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 573 - COMPANY LAW BOARD , CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197975</link>
      <description>The case involved issues regarding the issuance of 9,000 equity shares to the fifth respondent without proper consideration and the sale of the company&#039;s properties without member approval. The Company Law Board (CLB) held that the claim regarding the shares issued in 1976 should be pursued in a competent court, not under Sections 397 and 398. The CLB directed that the sale of the company&#039;s properties must comply with the Kerala High Court&#039;s order, requiring general body approval and ensuring the best possible price, without prejudice to the rights of financial institutions and statutory authorities. All interim orders were vacated, and no costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>