<?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>1960 (8) TMI 112 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457188</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the inspector&#039;s jurisdiction under the new Companies Act, rejecting claims of Article 20(3) violation as the appellant was not accused of any offense during the investigation, and ruling that Sections 239 and 240 did not infringe Article 14 as the classification was reasonable. The appeal was dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2024 15:57:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (8) TMI 112 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457188</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the inspector&#039;s jurisdiction under the new Companies Act, rejecting claims of Article 20(3) violation as the appellant was not accused of any offense during the investigation, and ruling that Sections 239 and 240 did not infringe Article 14 as the classification was reasonable. The appeal was dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>