<?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 (10) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97200</link>
    <description>Where no legally constituted or functioning board exists because director numbers have fallen below the required minimum, members in general meeting may exercise the company&#039;s residual power to appoint directors despite articles delegating appointment powers to the board. Regulation 83 of Table A did not exclude that inherent power, and the directors&#039; election was valid. Voting objections, including exclusion of certain members and participation by non-members as attorneys or proxies, did not invalidate the election because they did not materially affect the result. Objections concerning proxy deposits, nomination timing and adjournment also failed: the chairman could adjourn under the articles, no prejudice was shown, and parties seeking adjournment could not challenge it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:08:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (10) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97200</link>
      <description>Where no legally constituted or functioning board exists because director numbers have fallen below the required minimum, members in general meeting may exercise the company&#039;s residual power to appoint directors despite articles delegating appointment powers to the board. Regulation 83 of Table A did not exclude that inherent power, and the directors&#039; election was valid. Voting objections, including exclusion of certain members and participation by non-members as attorneys or proxies, did not invalidate the election because they did not materially affect the result. Objections concerning proxy deposits, nomination timing and adjournment also failed: the chairman could adjourn under the articles, no prejudice was shown, and parties seeking adjournment could not challenge it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>