https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97356 A nominated director does not vacate office by implication merely because the shareholders who appointed him cease to hold the shareholding required by the articles. The articles specified the circumstances in which such a director could cease to hold office, including a written request by the appointing party and other express contingencies, and no additional disqualification could be imported unless the contractual scheme could not otherwise operate or the language necessarily required it. The loss of the appointing group's power to remove the director did not itself create a vacancy, as the articles did not provide for automatic termination on that basis. The appeal failed. en-us Fri, 04 Nov 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:43:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97356 A nominated director does not vacate office by implication merely because the shareholders who appointed him cease to hold the shareholding required by the articles. The articles specified the circumstances in which such a director could cease to hold office, including a written request by the appointing party and other express contingencies, and no additional disqualification could be imported unless the contractual scheme could not otherwise operate or the language necessarily required it. The loss of the appointing group's power to remove the director did not itself create a vacancy, as the articles did not provide for automatic termination on that basis. The appeal failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 04 Nov 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97356