<?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>2003 (10) TMI 678 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199240</link>
    <description>The court found that many allegations lacked concrete evidence and did not meet the criteria under sections 397 and 398. It directed the sale of petitioners&#039; shares to respondents or the company at a fair value determined based on the balance sheet as of 31-3-2001, reserving the right to appoint a valuer and issue further directions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:15:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 678 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199240</link>
      <description>The court found that many allegations lacked concrete evidence and did not meet the criteria under sections 397 and 398. It directed the sale of petitioners&#039; shares to respondents or the company at a fair value determined based on the balance sheet as of 31-3-2001, reserving the right to appoint a valuer and issue further directions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>