<?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 (8) TMI 1117 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL — CHENNAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426878</link>
    <description>The tribunal held that the company secretary had the authority and locus standi to file the petition, emphasizing his role as a key managerial personnel and officer in default under the Companies Act, 2013. It dismissed the interlocutory application seeking to declare the petition not maintainable and scheduled the main petition for final hearing, directing both parties to submit their written submissions by a specified date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2022 12:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 1117 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL — CHENNAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426878</link>
      <description>The tribunal held that the company secretary had the authority and locus standi to file the petition, emphasizing his role as a key managerial personnel and officer in default under the Companies Act, 2013. It dismissed the interlocutory application seeking to declare the petition not maintainable and scheduled the main petition for final hearing, directing both parties to submit their written submissions by a specified date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>