<?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>1984 (11) TMI 358 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457654</link>
    <description>A prohibitory foreign-exchange restriction on purchase of shares by a non-resident investor required prior RBI permission before completion of the transaction, and purchases made without that permission were invalid. A later press release, circular and letter could operate only prospectively and could not retrospectively validate earlier purchases or authorise registration of the shares. On company law, a requisition to remove directors had to disclose reasons and be used for a lawful purpose; a requisition deployed for collateral pressure was arbitrary, mala fide and ultra vires. The petitioners were held to have locus standi because the dispute over share registration remained live and affected continuing rights.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 11:48:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (11) TMI 358 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457654</link>
      <description>A prohibitory foreign-exchange restriction on purchase of shares by a non-resident investor required prior RBI permission before completion of the transaction, and purchases made without that permission were invalid. A later press release, circular and letter could operate only prospectively and could not retrospectively validate earlier purchases or authorise registration of the shares. On company law, a requisition to remove directors had to disclose reasons and be used for a lawful purpose; a requisition deployed for collateral pressure was arbitrary, mala fide and ultra vires. The petitioners were held to have locus standi because the dispute over share registration remained live and affected continuing rights.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>