<?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>1998 (2) TMI 605 - COMPANY LAW BOARD DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199447</link>
    <description>The Company Law Board (CLB) dismissed the petition as the petitioners failed to prove oppression and mismanagement under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act. The CLB also ordered reimbursement of money deposited for share repurchase upon the civil court&#039;s decision on share entitlement, emphasizing the need to safeguard the company&#039;s stability and interests.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:46:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 605 - COMPANY LAW BOARD DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199447</link>
      <description>The Company Law Board (CLB) dismissed the petition as the petitioners failed to prove oppression and mismanagement under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act. The CLB also ordered reimbursement of money deposited for share repurchase upon the civil court&#039;s decision on share entitlement, emphasizing the need to safeguard the company&#039;s stability and interests.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199447</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>