<?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>2024 (8) TMI 1057 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757353</link>
    <description>The NCLAT dismissed an appeal where the appellant sought protection under Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013 for reinstatement as Secretary of a Club following termination. The appellant argued termination violated Section 218(1)(b) requiring prior tribunal approval for employee removal. The NCLAT held the appellant was merely re-agitating issues already decided by the NCLT on 25.03.2021, where no relief was granted for setting aside termination or permitting continuance. The tribunal found subsequent applications were repetitive attempts to seek the same protection already rejected, with no grounds established to interfere with the NCLT&#039;s order dated 05.04.2024.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1057 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757353</link>
      <description>The NCLAT dismissed an appeal where the appellant sought protection under Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013 for reinstatement as Secretary of a Club following termination. The appellant argued termination violated Section 218(1)(b) requiring prior tribunal approval for employee removal. The NCLAT held the appellant was merely re-agitating issues already decided by the NCLT on 25.03.2021, where no relief was granted for setting aside termination or permitting continuance. The tribunal found subsequent applications were repetitive attempts to seek the same protection already rejected, with no grounds established to interfere with the NCLT&#039;s order dated 05.04.2024.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757353</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>