<?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>1954 (4) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97281</link>
    <description>A suit seeking declaration of entitlement to an office of president and a consequential injunction need not be valued on the market value of the institution&#039;s properties, because the relief is not capable of definite monetary valuation merely due to managerial powers attached to the office. The court-fee valuation was therefore proper and the trial court had pecuniary jurisdiction. On maintainability, the company could sue through its president even though the secretary did not join, since the articles did not exclude the company from proceeding where the majority of directors supported the action. The preliminary objections were rejected and the revision petition dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:43:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (4) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97281</link>
      <description>A suit seeking declaration of entitlement to an office of president and a consequential injunction need not be valued on the market value of the institution&#039;s properties, because the relief is not capable of definite monetary valuation merely due to managerial powers attached to the office. The court-fee valuation was therefore proper and the trial court had pecuniary jurisdiction. On maintainability, the company could sue through its president even though the secretary did not join, since the articles did not exclude the company from proceeding where the majority of directors supported the action. The preliminary objections were rejected and the revision petition dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>