<?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>1970 (8) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98820</link>
    <description>The statutory scheme for directors&#039; remuneration distinguishes between remuneration linked to net profits and minimum remuneration where profits are absent or inadequate. The Company Law Board erred in refusing approval solely because the company had no net profits and carried accumulated losses, without considering the provision permitting reasonable minimum remuneration subject to approval. The refusal was therefore set aside. However, the High Court declined to grant approval itself, holding that the company&#039;s financial position and later developments required reconsideration by the statutory authority. The matter was remitted for fresh decision under the correct legal framework.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:39:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (8) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98820</link>
      <description>The statutory scheme for directors&#039; remuneration distinguishes between remuneration linked to net profits and minimum remuneration where profits are absent or inadequate. The Company Law Board erred in refusing approval solely because the company had no net profits and carried accumulated losses, without considering the provision permitting reasonable minimum remuneration subject to approval. The refusal was therefore set aside. However, the High Court declined to grant approval itself, holding that the company&#039;s financial position and later developments required reconsideration by the statutory authority. The matter was remitted for fresh decision under the correct legal framework.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98820</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>