https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96933 Section 143 of the Companies Act 1929 and article 88 of Table A validate defects or irregularities in appointment or qualification, but not a complete absence of appointment. They cannot be stretched to legitimise a usurpation of office by a person who was never duly appointed, and acts done in such circumstances remain unvalidated. The rule in Turquand's case protects outsiders dealing in good faith with a company on the assumption that internal requirements have been complied with, but it is unavailable to a director or de facto director who himself participates in the unauthorised transaction. A director cannot rely on the indoor management rule to validate his own unauthorised act. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:08:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96933 Section 143 of the Companies Act 1929 and article 88 of Table A validate defects or irregularities in appointment or qualification, but not a complete absence of appointment. They cannot be stretched to legitimise a usurpation of office by a person who was never duly appointed, and acts done in such circumstances remain unvalidated. The rule in Turquand's case protects outsiders dealing in good faith with a company on the assumption that internal requirements have been complied with, but it is unavailable to a director or de facto director who himself participates in the unauthorised transaction. A director cannot rely on the indoor management rule to validate his own unauthorised act. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 22 Mar 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96933