<?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>1933 (12) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96633</link>
    <description>A trust deed requiring unanimous director approval for investment of policyholders&#039; funds in house property was construed strictly: &quot;purchase of house property&quot; did not extend to constructing a building, especially where the instruments contrasted purchasing property with erecting buildings for shareholders&#039; funds. The resolution authorising construction from the Policyholders&#039; Trust Fund was therefore ultra vires and invalid. A later modified scheme approved only by majority could not cure the defect because unanimity had to cover the specific property or building plan, not merely the spending limit. The core decision whether to acquire or build could not be delegated to a committee; only subsidiary acts were delegable. The restraint on expenditure was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:53:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1933 (12) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96633</link>
      <description>A trust deed requiring unanimous director approval for investment of policyholders&#039; funds in house property was construed strictly: &quot;purchase of house property&quot; did not extend to constructing a building, especially where the instruments contrasted purchasing property with erecting buildings for shareholders&#039; funds. The resolution authorising construction from the Policyholders&#039; Trust Fund was therefore ultra vires and invalid. A later modified scheme approved only by majority could not cure the defect because unanimity had to cover the specific property or building plan, not merely the spending limit. The core decision whether to acquire or build could not be delegated to a committee; only subsidiary acts were delegable. The restraint on expenditure was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>