<?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 (7) TMI 362 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NORTHERN REGION BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200061</link>
    <description>The Company Law Board was not a civil court for purposes of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Act, 1994 because the Companies Act treated it as a separate body with its own procedure and only limited civil-court powers. That distinction meant the statutory transfer of jurisdiction from civil courts over securities transactions involving notified persons did not extend to proceedings before the Board. The amendment therefore did not withdraw the Board&#039;s jurisdiction, and the jurisdictional objection failed; the matter was to proceed before the Company Law Board.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:59:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=513404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (7) TMI 362 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NORTHERN REGION BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200061</link>
      <description>The Company Law Board was not a civil court for purposes of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Act, 1994 because the Companies Act treated it as a separate body with its own procedure and only limited civil-court powers. That distinction meant the statutory transfer of jurisdiction from civil courts over securities transactions involving notified persons did not extend to proceedings before the Board. The amendment therefore did not withdraw the Board&#039;s jurisdiction, and the jurisdictional objection failed; the matter was to proceed before the Company Law Board.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>