<?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>2020 (2) TMI 918 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392474</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to establish a valid cause of action, comply with statutory provisions, or provide sufficient evidence for claims of beneficial ownership and possession of the farmhouse. Doubts were raised about the authenticity of agreements cited by the plaintiff. Strict compliance with statutory provisions regarding beneficial ownership of shares was emphasized.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:48:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 918 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392474</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to establish a valid cause of action, comply with statutory provisions, or provide sufficient evidence for claims of beneficial ownership and possession of the farmhouse. Doubts were raised about the authenticity of agreements cited by the plaintiff. Strict compliance with statutory provisions regarding beneficial ownership of shares was emphasized.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>