<?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>2026 (4) TMI 165 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789096</link>
    <description>A company forum may examine whether an alleged deposit held by a company must be refunded or safeguarded even while probate proceedings remain pending, because the company&#039;s liability to account for and protect the asset is distinct from the probate court&#039;s task of identifying the eventual heir. The possibility of dissipation justified immediate consideration of the deposit-related relief. A claimant to the deceased&#039;s estate may also continue proceedings to preserve the estate pending probate, since the absence of final heirship does not bar protective action. The matter was remitted for adjudication on merits, including independent determination of the alleged deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 165 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789096</link>
      <description>A company forum may examine whether an alleged deposit held by a company must be refunded or safeguarded even while probate proceedings remain pending, because the company&#039;s liability to account for and protect the asset is distinct from the probate court&#039;s task of identifying the eventual heir. The possibility of dissipation justified immediate consideration of the deposit-related relief. A claimant to the deceased&#039;s estate may also continue proceedings to preserve the estate pending probate, since the absence of final heirship does not bar protective action. The matter was remitted for adjudication on merits, including independent determination of the alleged deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>