<?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>2019 (1) TMI 1516 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374351</link>
    <description>At the stage of framing charge, the court must examine only whether prima facie material exists, not undertake detailed appreciation of evidence. Statements of material witnesses indicated that the applicant had a substantial role in suggesting investments, facilitating transactions, and connecting the concerned persons with the company and its directors. On that material, the rejection of discharge was upheld and the applicant was not entitled to discharge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:54:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=555763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1516 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374351</link>
      <description>At the stage of framing charge, the court must examine only whether prima facie material exists, not undertake detailed appreciation of evidence. Statements of material witnesses indicated that the applicant had a substantial role in suggesting investments, facilitating transactions, and connecting the concerned persons with the company and its directors. On that material, the rejection of discharge was upheld and the applicant was not entitled to discharge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>