<?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>1975 (12) TMI 177 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198297</link>
    <description>An appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 may be examined at the admission stage, and it can be refused where no prima facie substance is shown, because the appellate process includes screening for merit and competence. Section 536(2) is an equitable provision that permits protection of bona fide post-commencement transactions; that power is not confined to the period before a winding-up order and may be exercised after such order where the transaction is supported by consideration and is not colourable or unfair. On that basis, the appeal was found to lack merit and the protective order in favour of the transaction was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:55:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (12) TMI 177 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198297</link>
      <description>An appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 may be examined at the admission stage, and it can be refused where no prima facie substance is shown, because the appellate process includes screening for merit and competence. Section 536(2) is an equitable provision that permits protection of bona fide post-commencement transactions; that power is not confined to the period before a winding-up order and may be exercised after such order where the transaction is supported by consideration and is not colourable or unfair. On that basis, the appeal was found to lack merit and the protective order in favour of the transaction was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>