<?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>1980 (4) TMI 236 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99773</link>
    <description>Approval of managerial remuneration and managing director appointment terms under the Companies Act, 1956 must be based on objective statutory criteria, including the company&#039;s financial position, the individual&#039;s qualifications and experience, existing remuneration, and the fairness of the terms. General administrative guidelines that impose uniform ceilings and replace case-by-case assessment are inconsistent with that statutory scheme and cannot curtail the discretion required by the Act. An approval order in this context must also be reasoned and disclose consideration of relevant factors; a non-speaking order that omits reasons is vulnerable to challenge. The matter therefore calls for reconsideration on relevant material after hearing the affected party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:04:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (4) TMI 236 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99773</link>
      <description>Approval of managerial remuneration and managing director appointment terms under the Companies Act, 1956 must be based on objective statutory criteria, including the company&#039;s financial position, the individual&#039;s qualifications and experience, existing remuneration, and the fairness of the terms. General administrative guidelines that impose uniform ceilings and replace case-by-case assessment are inconsistent with that statutory scheme and cannot curtail the discretion required by the Act. An approval order in this context must also be reasoned and disclose consideration of relevant factors; a non-speaking order that omits reasons is vulnerable to challenge. The matter therefore calls for reconsideration on relevant material after hearing the affected party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>