<?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 (7) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794374</link>
    <description>Interrogatories in a company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement may be permitted where they are directed to material facts and help narrow the controversy. The Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and the relevant Company Law Board powers contemplated discovery, inspection, and calls for further information when necessary for effective adjudication. Interrogatories linked to allegations about transfer of business, sale of assets, purchase of alternate land, and diversion of funds were treated as directly relevant. The refusal based on delay, lack of bona fides, or a fishing and roving enquiry was not justified on the facts stated, and the interrogatories were described as neither unreasonable, vexatious, oppressive, nor scandalous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2026 08:15:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=910040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794374</link>
      <description>Interrogatories in a company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement may be permitted where they are directed to material facts and help narrow the controversy. The Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and the relevant Company Law Board powers contemplated discovery, inspection, and calls for further information when necessary for effective adjudication. Interrogatories linked to allegations about transfer of business, sale of assets, purchase of alternate land, and diversion of funds were treated as directly relevant. The refusal based on delay, lack of bona fides, or a fishing and roving enquiry was not justified on the facts stated, and the interrogatories were described as neither unreasonable, vexatious, oppressive, nor scandalous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>