https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96530 Section 86 of the Companies Act protected acts done by a director despite defects in appointment or qualification, but its proviso meant that validity could still be challenged where the appointment itself was in issue. Because the witness's authority to sign and verify the plaint depended on the validity of his appointment as director, the defendants were entitled to cross-examine him on that issue and adduce further evidence. The trial court should not have cut short that inquiry, as material evidence relevant to the appointment and status question remained open. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 1930 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:28:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96530 Section 86 of the Companies Act protected acts done by a director despite defects in appointment or qualification, but its proviso meant that validity could still be challenged where the appointment itself was in issue. Because the witness's authority to sign and verify the plaint depended on the validity of his appointment as director, the defendants were entitled to cross-examine him on that issue and adduce further evidence. The trial court should not have cut short that inquiry, as material evidence relevant to the appointment and status question remained open. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 12 Feb 1930 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96530