<?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 (9) TMI 374 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398255</link>
    <description>The NCLAT quashed the Impugned Order, directing the bank to hold the appropriated amount and allowing both parties to seek further directions from the High Court. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal basis and jurisdiction in issuing directions in such matters, particularly in the context of pending winding-up proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:50:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 374 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398255</link>
      <description>The NCLAT quashed the Impugned Order, directing the bank to hold the appropriated amount and allowing both parties to seek further directions from the High Court. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal basis and jurisdiction in issuing directions in such matters, particularly in the context of pending winding-up proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>