<?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 (2) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98325</link>
    <description>A resolution proposing the appointment of two or more directors breaches the single-resolution restriction and is void ab initio. Because the void resolution is treated in law as never having existed, the breach does not constitute a punishable contravention under the residuary penalty provision where no specific penalty is prescribed. Strict construction of penal provisions requires any reasonable ambiguity to be resolved in favour of the accused. Accordingly, respondents cannot be penalised for moving the single resolution, and their acquittal stands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:43:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (2) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98325</link>
      <description>A resolution proposing the appointment of two or more directors breaches the single-resolution restriction and is void ab initio. Because the void resolution is treated in law as never having existed, the breach does not constitute a punishable contravention under the residuary penalty provision where no specific penalty is prescribed. Strict construction of penal provisions requires any reasonable ambiguity to be resolved in favour of the accused. Accordingly, respondents cannot be penalised for moving the single resolution, and their acquittal stands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>