<?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>1952 (3) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97148</link>
    <description>A managing agency agreement with a separately stipulated office allowance entitled the agents to that allowance until lawful termination by winding up, even though the company had ceased business and the agents were kept out of management. The suspension resolution did not amount to lawful termination, and the allowance was not treated as disguised minimum remuneration. However, no implied covenant required the company to carry on business for the full fixed term, so the agents could not recover future office allowance as damages for the unexpired period of the twenty-year term. Recovery was therefore limited to office allowance up to the date of winding up, with no prospective compensation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:05:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (3) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97148</link>
      <description>A managing agency agreement with a separately stipulated office allowance entitled the agents to that allowance until lawful termination by winding up, even though the company had ceased business and the agents were kept out of management. The suspension resolution did not amount to lawful termination, and the allowance was not treated as disguised minimum remuneration. However, no implied covenant required the company to carry on business for the full fixed term, so the agents could not recover future office allowance as damages for the unexpired period of the twenty-year term. Recovery was therefore limited to office allowance up to the date of winding up, with no prospective compensation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>