<?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>1965 (11) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98266</link>
    <description>The court addressed whether a director/officer&#039;s statutory liability and obligation to file accounts cease upon mere dispatch of a resignation letter. Applying statutory definitions of director, managing director and officer, and examining documentary evidence that the petitioner retained managerial control and had not been formally relieved, the court held that resignation alone does not terminate managerial or officer capacity. Acceptance of resignation and formal relief from duties by the company are required for liability under the cited provisions to cease. Outcome: the petitioner&#039;s plea based on mere submission of resignation was rejected and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:16:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (11) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98266</link>
      <description>The court addressed whether a director/officer&#039;s statutory liability and obligation to file accounts cease upon mere dispatch of a resignation letter. Applying statutory definitions of director, managing director and officer, and examining documentary evidence that the petitioner retained managerial control and had not been formally relieved, the court held that resignation alone does not terminate managerial or officer capacity. Acceptance of resignation and formal relief from duties by the company are required for liability under the cited provisions to cease. Outcome: the petitioner&#039;s plea based on mere submission of resignation was rejected and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>