<?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>2023 (2) TMI 443 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433928</link>
    <description>Limitation for an appeal is computed from the first receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order; later applications for copies do not extend time. On the shareholding dispute, valid allotment or transfer must be supported by reliable documentary proof, and where the Articles of Association require existing shareholders&#039; consent for induction of a new shareholder, that consent is essential. Correspondence and settlement materials indicating that the original allottee&#039;s family was to retain 51% shareholding supported the challenged order, and no illegality or infirmity was found in setting aside the EGM and granting consequential reliefs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2023 08:48:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (2) TMI 443 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433928</link>
      <description>Limitation for an appeal is computed from the first receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order; later applications for copies do not extend time. On the shareholding dispute, valid allotment or transfer must be supported by reliable documentary proof, and where the Articles of Association require existing shareholders&#039; consent for induction of a new shareholder, that consent is essential. Correspondence and settlement materials indicating that the original allottee&#039;s family was to retain 51% shareholding supported the challenged order, and no illegality or infirmity was found in setting aside the EGM and granting consequential reliefs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>