<?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 (1) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98297</link>
    <description>A company&#039;s articles and memorandum may validly confer power to borrow money and issue hundis or bills of exchange, and such power does not displace the statutory internal requirement that the board act by resolution at a meeting. A third-party creditor dealing in good faith may presume regular compliance with internal management formalities, and the company cannot avoid liability by relying on undisclosed internal irregularities. Because the existence of a board resolution lies within the company&#039;s special knowledge, non-production of the minute book or resolution book may justify an adverse inference against the company. The burden of proving want of authority rests on the company, not the outsider.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:52:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (1) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98297</link>
      <description>A company&#039;s articles and memorandum may validly confer power to borrow money and issue hundis or bills of exchange, and such power does not displace the statutory internal requirement that the board act by resolution at a meeting. A third-party creditor dealing in good faith may presume regular compliance with internal management formalities, and the company cannot avoid liability by relying on undisclosed internal irregularities. Because the existence of a board resolution lies within the company&#039;s special knowledge, non-production of the minute book or resolution book may justify an adverse inference against the company. The burden of proving want of authority rests on the company, not the outsider.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>