<?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 (3) TMI 459 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356756</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the Petition challenging the registration and assignment of debt, validity of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, and jurisdiction of the Company Law Board. It held that the Company Law Board had the authority to register the charge under Section 141 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court found the Petition lacked merit and directed the Petitioner to address concerns regarding document validity and debt recovery entitlement in a different forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 05:45:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 459 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356756</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the Petition challenging the registration and assignment of debt, validity of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, and jurisdiction of the Company Law Board. It held that the Company Law Board had the authority to register the charge under Section 141 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court found the Petition lacked merit and directed the Petitioner to address concerns regarding document validity and debt recovery entitlement in a different forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356756</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>