<?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>1994 (1) TMI 299 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199180</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Company Law Board&#039;s order and dismissing Company Petition No. 59 of 1992. The court held that the petition was not validly instituted due to the lack of proper consent under Section 399(3) and the absence of authorization for the director to file the petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:41:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 299 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199180</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Company Law Board&#039;s order and dismissing Company Petition No. 59 of 1992. The court held that the petition was not validly instituted due to the lack of proper consent under Section 399(3) and the absence of authorization for the director to file the petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>