<?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>1976 (9) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99371</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Registrar&#039;s order, dismissing the petition without costs. The judgment clarified the requirements of section 314 of the Companies Act regarding the appointment of directors as technical advisers, emphasizing the need for qualifications and compliance to avoid legal consequences related to holding an office of profit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:20:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (9) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99371</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Registrar&#039;s order, dismissing the petition without costs. The judgment clarified the requirements of section 314 of the Companies Act regarding the appointment of directors as technical advisers, emphasizing the need for qualifications and compliance to avoid legal consequences related to holding an office of profit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>