<?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 109 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99374</link>
    <description>An unequivocal director&#039;s resignation took effect on tender, because the Companies Act, 1956 and the company&#039;s memorandum and articles contained no requirement for board or company acceptance. Applying the principle that a director acts as an agent of the company, the court treated the written resignation as effective from the date it was submitted. The former director therefore ceased to hold office from that date and could not be proceeded against as a director for a later alleged default in filing the annual return. The analysis also rejected any requirement that another director be co-opted before resignation could operate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:22:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136426" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (9) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99374</link>
      <description>An unequivocal director&#039;s resignation took effect on tender, because the Companies Act, 1956 and the company&#039;s memorandum and articles contained no requirement for board or company acceptance. Applying the principle that a director acts as an agent of the company, the court treated the written resignation as effective from the date it was submitted. The former director therefore ceased to hold office from that date and could not be proceeded against as a director for a later alleged default in filing the annual return. The analysis also rejected any requirement that another director be co-opted before resignation could operate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>