<?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>1955 (12) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97362</link>
    <description>Statutory advertisement of a company petition must meet the minimum notice period and disclose the material reliefs sought; deficient timing or vague particulars prejudice shareholders and are not merely curable irregularities. Alteration of articles of association must follow the prescribed statutory procedure and cannot be achieved through a consent order that bypasses those requirements. Counsel cannot bind shareholders to a compromise without express authority under the vakalat, and subsequent conduct constitutes ratification only where it clearly confirms an adequately disclosed compromise. Petitioning shareholders could contest the proceedings, while restraint of the administrators was refused and one administrator was substituted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:53:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (12) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97362</link>
      <description>Statutory advertisement of a company petition must meet the minimum notice period and disclose the material reliefs sought; deficient timing or vague particulars prejudice shareholders and are not merely curable irregularities. Alteration of articles of association must follow the prescribed statutory procedure and cannot be achieved through a consent order that bypasses those requirements. Counsel cannot bind shareholders to a compromise without express authority under the vakalat, and subsequent conduct constitutes ratification only where it clearly confirms an adequately disclosed compromise. Petitioning shareholders could contest the proceedings, while restraint of the administrators was refused and one administrator was substituted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>