TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the company petition was maintainable when the Company Secretary who instituted it and deposed for the petitioner had no proved authority from the Board.
Analysis: Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1956 vests the powers of a company in its Board of Directors, and Rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 requires a company petition to be verified by a duly authorised officer. No Board resolution or other material was produced to show that the Company Secretary was authorised to institute the petition or to affirm the affidavit on behalf of the company. In the absence of proof of authority, the petition could not be treated as validly instituted.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent; the company petition was not maintainable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
