<?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 (7) TMI 663 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425108</link>
    <description>In oppression and mismanagement proceedings, strangers to the company are not ordinarily necessary parties unless their presence is required to resolve the internal dispute. A purchaser of company assets was held not to be impleaded where the assets had already been sold before the company petition was filed, the sale deed was already under challenge in civil court, and the tribunal could not determine civil rights arising from that transaction within its limited jurisdiction. An allegation based on a later status quo order also failed because the transfer had preceded that order. The impleadment application was therefore not maintainable at that stage and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2022 09:20:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=685174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 663 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AHMEDABAD BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425108</link>
      <description>In oppression and mismanagement proceedings, strangers to the company are not ordinarily necessary parties unless their presence is required to resolve the internal dispute. A purchaser of company assets was held not to be impleaded where the assets had already been sold before the company petition was filed, the sale deed was already under challenge in civil court, and the tribunal could not determine civil rights arising from that transaction within its limited jurisdiction. An allegation based on a later status quo order also failed because the transfer had preceded that order. The impleadment application was therefore not maintainable at that stage and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425108</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>