<?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>2001 (1) TMI 997 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198393</link>
    <description>The petition was disposed of with no order as to cost by the Company Law Board, which found that the issues raised had either been previously addressed by the High Court or lacked sufficient evidence. The decision to increase capital was considered bona fide and in the company&#039;s interest, leading to the rejection of the petitioner&#039;s claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:06:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 997 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198393</link>
      <description>The petition was disposed of with no order as to cost by the Company Law Board, which found that the issues raised had either been previously addressed by the High Court or lacked sufficient evidence. The decision to increase capital was considered bona fide and in the company&#039;s interest, leading to the rejection of the petitioner&#039;s claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>