<?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 18 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97201</link>
    <description>A company officeholder cannot rely solely on the articles of association to claim a continuing right to remain in office where no independent enforceable contract is proved. The court treated the claim for declaration of continuance as unsupported by the constitutional documents alone and rejected any asserted entitlement to the office. A suit framed as a bare declaration, with later attempted consequential injunction, was also held not maintainable because it in substance sought enforcement of a personal service arrangement, which is not specifically enforceable. The dismissal of the suit was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:11:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (10) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97201</link>
      <description>A company officeholder cannot rely solely on the articles of association to claim a continuing right to remain in office where no independent enforceable contract is proved. The court treated the claim for declaration of continuance as unsupported by the constitutional documents alone and rejected any asserted entitlement to the office. A suit framed as a bare declaration, with later attempted consequential injunction, was also held not maintainable because it in substance sought enforcement of a personal service arrangement, which is not specifically enforceable. The dismissal of the suit was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>