<?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 (2) TMI 30 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374403</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the application to prevent the auctioning of the property, ruling that the sale deed was likely fabricated to deceive the company and unlawfully acquire its assets. The petitioner&#039;s lack of bona fide intentions and discrepancies in the transaction led to the conclusion that proper authorization and compliance with the Companies Act were lacking. The judgment emphasized the importance of transparency and adherence to legal provisions in property transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2019 07:29:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=555930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 30 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374403</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the application to prevent the auctioning of the property, ruling that the sale deed was likely fabricated to deceive the company and unlawfully acquire its assets. The petitioner&#039;s lack of bona fide intentions and discrepancies in the transaction led to the conclusion that proper authorization and compliance with the Companies Act were lacking. The judgment emphasized the importance of transparency and adherence to legal provisions in property transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>