<?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>Tribunal Supports Special Officer&#039;s Independent Valuation Decision Despite Contempt Application by Appellants.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=60108</link>
    <description>Oppression and Mismanagement - The appellants are critical of the Special Officer appointed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal (who was appointed to ensure smooth holding of board meetings) and took opportunity to file even against such Special Officer a contempt application. The impugned order shows that when the original respondents did not co-operate in naming a valuer the Special Officer selected a name and got the valuation done. The respondents have been agitating over this claiming that the Special Officer could not have on his own gone ahead to appoint a valuer and should have moved the National Company Law Tribunal for modification. The learned National Company Law Tribunal does not appear to have found fault with such procedure adopted by the Special Officer. - The impugned order as has been passed should not be interfered with - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:48:06 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:48:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=658591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal Supports Special Officer&#039;s Independent Valuation Decision Despite Contempt Application by Appellants.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=60108</link>
      <description>Oppression and Mismanagement - The appellants are critical of the Special Officer appointed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal (who was appointed to ensure smooth holding of board meetings) and took opportunity to file even against such Special Officer a contempt application. The impugned order shows that when the original respondents did not co-operate in naming a valuer the Special Officer selected a name and got the valuation done. The respondents have been agitating over this claiming that the Special Officer could not have on his own gone ahead to appoint a valuer and should have moved the National Company Law Tribunal for modification. The learned National Company Law Tribunal does not appear to have found fault with such procedure adopted by the Special Officer. - The impugned order as has been passed should not be interfered with - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:48:06 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=60108</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>