<?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>2014 (8) TMI 1256 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460297</link>
    <description>Time for compliance with Clause 41 of the Listing Agreement was extended by four weeks where the company could not convene a board meeting for want of quorum because security clearance for a director had been received only recently. The extension enabled publication of the audited financial results within the additional period. The Court clarified that the relief did not amount to condonation of delay, and the respondents remained free to examine the alleged default independently.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jan 2025 08:47:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=789914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 1256 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460297</link>
      <description>Time for compliance with Clause 41 of the Listing Agreement was extended by four weeks where the company could not convene a board meeting for want of quorum because security clearance for a director had been received only recently. The extension enabled publication of the audited financial results within the additional period. The Court clarified that the relief did not amount to condonation of delay, and the respondents remained free to examine the alleged default independently.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>