<?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 (10) TMI 595 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399621</link>
    <description>The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned order and quashing the ROC&#039;s publication of the disqualified directors&#039; list and DIN deactivation. The court ordered the reactivation of the appellants&#039; DINs within 30 days and clarified that the ROC could initiate disqualification actions subject to an enquiry to attribute defaults to specific directors.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 595 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399621</link>
      <description>The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned order and quashing the ROC&#039;s publication of the disqualified directors&#039; list and DIN deactivation. The court ordered the reactivation of the appellants&#039; DINs within 30 days and clarified that the ROC could initiate disqualification actions subject to an enquiry to attribute defaults to specific directors.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>