<?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>2018 (2) TMI 1328 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355907</link>
    <description>Interim restraint on a scheduled EGM was refused where the applicant had received notice, could attend the meeting and raise objections, and no compelling ground for immediate interference was shown. The Tribunal noted allegations that the notice and explanatory statement were incomplete under Section 102 of the Companies Act, 2013, and that document inspection had been refused, but held that these objections did not justify stopping the meeting at the interim stage. The pending challenge to maintainability of the main company petition was also noted, yet the proposed meeting was treated as a statutory corporate process that should not be restrained on the facts presented.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2018 06:28:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1328 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355907</link>
      <description>Interim restraint on a scheduled EGM was refused where the applicant had received notice, could attend the meeting and raise objections, and no compelling ground for immediate interference was shown. The Tribunal noted allegations that the notice and explanatory statement were incomplete under Section 102 of the Companies Act, 2013, and that document inspection had been refused, but held that these objections did not justify stopping the meeting at the interim stage. The pending challenge to maintainability of the main company petition was also noted, yet the proposed meeting was treated as a statutory corporate process that should not be restrained on the facts presented.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>