<?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>1966 (4) TMI 40 - IN THE COURT OF APPEAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98278</link>
    <description>A contract to introduce a financier and earn commission was held to fall within the company&#039;s memorandum because the objects clause expressly permitted ancillary, incidental and conducive business connected with the company&#039;s development activities and asset dealings. The court treated the arrangement as an isolated commercial transaction linked to financing needs, not a separate speculative venture, and accepted that a bona fide opinion of the directors could satisfy the memorandum&#039;s requirement that the business be advantageous in connection with the company&#039;s objects. The arrangement was therefore intra vires and the ultra vires defence failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135335" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (4) TMI 40 - IN THE COURT OF APPEAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98278</link>
      <description>A contract to introduce a financier and earn commission was held to fall within the company&#039;s memorandum because the objects clause expressly permitted ancillary, incidental and conducive business connected with the company&#039;s development activities and asset dealings. The court treated the arrangement as an isolated commercial transaction linked to financing needs, not a separate speculative venture, and accepted that a bona fide opinion of the directors could satisfy the memorandum&#039;s requirement that the business be advantageous in connection with the company&#039;s objects. The arrangement was therefore intra vires and the ultra vires defence failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>