<?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>2022 (4) TMI 313 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420647</link>
    <description>An invalid board resolution and consequential share allotment were treated as set aside in their entirety where the meeting was held without notice to a director and the increase in authorised share capital was found illegal. The omission to name one allottee in the operative portion did not preserve that allotment, because the order had to be read as a whole and the reasoning showed that the entire transaction was annulled. As the earlier adjudication had attained finality, the maintainability objection had to be decided in light of that clarified effect. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal below for an expeditious ruling on maintainability, with interim status quo preserved for a limited period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 313 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420647</link>
      <description>An invalid board resolution and consequential share allotment were treated as set aside in their entirety where the meeting was held without notice to a director and the increase in authorised share capital was found illegal. The omission to name one allottee in the operative portion did not preserve that allotment, because the order had to be read as a whole and the reasoning showed that the entire transaction was annulled. As the earlier adjudication had attained finality, the maintainability objection had to be decided in light of that clarified effect. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal below for an expeditious ruling on maintainability, with interim status quo preserved for a limited period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>