<?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>2008 (10) TMI 693 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198357</link>
    <description>In a petition for oppression and mismanagement, prior civil proceedings and delay did not, on the facts noted, bar relief where no prejudice was shown and the earlier proceedings had been withdrawn. The record indicated incomplete accounts and failure to render Kuwait-related transactions, leading to a finding of lack of probity and a direction to account for and quantify the receipts for the company. The sale of Gummidipundi properties during the pendency of the petition was treated as subject to lis pendens and the forum&#039;s equitable jurisdiction; because company funds had financed only part of the acquisition, proportional relief was granted and the company&#039;s interest was protected by restoration of 1 acre 60 cents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:41:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 693 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198357</link>
      <description>In a petition for oppression and mismanagement, prior civil proceedings and delay did not, on the facts noted, bar relief where no prejudice was shown and the earlier proceedings had been withdrawn. The record indicated incomplete accounts and failure to render Kuwait-related transactions, leading to a finding of lack of probity and a direction to account for and quantify the receipts for the company. The sale of Gummidipundi properties during the pendency of the petition was treated as subject to lis pendens and the forum&#039;s equitable jurisdiction; because company funds had financed only part of the acquisition, proportional relief was granted and the company&#039;s interest was protected by restoration of 1 acre 60 cents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198357</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>