<?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>1958 (1) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97581</link>
    <description>A managing directorship or joint managing directorship is not a legal character or legal status within section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, so a declaration cannot be founded on that basis. A non-shareholder cannot invoke a company&#039;s articles of association to challenge board resolutions or sustain declaratory and injunctive relief, because the articles operate as a contract only in relation to members. The board&#039;s power to appoint a managing director under article 99, expressed as exercisable &quot;from time to time,&quot; was construed to include an implied power to revoke that appointment; article 100 was not read as restricting that power. On that construction, the impugned resolutions were not ultra vires.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:02:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (1) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97581</link>
      <description>A managing directorship or joint managing directorship is not a legal character or legal status within section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, so a declaration cannot be founded on that basis. A non-shareholder cannot invoke a company&#039;s articles of association to challenge board resolutions or sustain declaratory and injunctive relief, because the articles operate as a contract only in relation to members. The board&#039;s power to appoint a managing director under article 99, expressed as exercisable &quot;from time to time,&quot; was construed to include an implied power to revoke that appointment; article 100 was not read as restricting that power. On that construction, the impugned resolutions were not ultra vires.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>