<?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 (10) TMI 317 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199741</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition as there was no enforceable agreement regarding shareholding parity, no violation of Article 7, and issues of mala fides cannot be addressed under Section 111. The relief sought was beyond the scope of Section 111, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Respondents offered the remaining unallotted shares to petitioners upon application, with no costs ordered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Mar 2018 11:25:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 317 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199741</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition as there was no enforceable agreement regarding shareholding parity, no violation of Article 7, and issues of mala fides cannot be addressed under Section 111. The relief sought was beyond the scope of Section 111, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Respondents offered the remaining unallotted shares to petitioners upon application, with no costs ordered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>