<?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>1960 (8) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97732</link>
    <description>The board&#039;s management powers under the articles could not be displaced by an ordinary shareholder resolution or by a general meeting convened for an indirect purpose. A challenge to the authority to institute a suit had to be raised at an early stage by appropriate motion, not by defence on the merits. The directors&#039; management powers could be controlled only in the manner provided by the articles or through lawful removal under the Companies Act, and section 284 did not permit a meeting to be used as a device to override the board without following the prescribed procedure. The objection to the suit&#039;s institution therefore failed, and no general meeting could be ordered to decide whether the suit should continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:59:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (8) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97732</link>
      <description>The board&#039;s management powers under the articles could not be displaced by an ordinary shareholder resolution or by a general meeting convened for an indirect purpose. A challenge to the authority to institute a suit had to be raised at an early stage by appropriate motion, not by defence on the merits. The directors&#039; management powers could be controlled only in the manner provided by the articles or through lawful removal under the Companies Act, and section 284 did not permit a meeting to be used as a device to override the board without following the prescribed procedure. The objection to the suit&#039;s institution therefore failed, and no general meeting could be ordered to decide whether the suit should continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>