<?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>1930 (9) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF RANGOON</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96558</link>
    <description>Whether the acts of an irregularly appointed director are saved by the validation provision of section 86 was central; the court treated the individual as a de facto director who had acted continually and held that mere raising of doubt or interlocutory findings did not amount to a judicial declaration of invalidity, so the proviso excluding validation did not apply. The legal effect applied was validation of his act in signing the plaint, rendering the plaint competent under the statutory validation doctrine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 1930 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:00:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1930 (9) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF RANGOON</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96558</link>
      <description>Whether the acts of an irregularly appointed director are saved by the validation provision of section 86 was central; the court treated the individual as a de facto director who had acted continually and held that mere raising of doubt or interlocutory findings did not amount to a judicial declaration of invalidity, so the proviso excluding validation did not apply. The legal effect applied was validation of his act in signing the plaint, rendering the plaint competent under the statutory validation doctrine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 1930 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>