https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101502 The defendant's request for leave to defend the suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure was granted by the trial court based on a deposit and security. The court determined that the contract was not void due to a director's failure to disclose interest under section 299 of the Companies Act, as non-disclosure does not render contracts illegal but imposes fines. The court also clarified that contracts involving interested directors are not automatically void under Indian law, emphasizing the importance of disclosure. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the petition and leaving each party to bear their own costs. en-us Wed, 27 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:52:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101502 The defendant's request for leave to defend the suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure was granted by the trial court based on a deposit and security. The court determined that the contract was not void due to a director's failure to disclose interest under section 299 of the Companies Act, as non-disclosure does not render contracts illegal but imposes fines. The court also clarified that contracts involving interested directors are not automatically void under Indian law, emphasizing the importance of disclosure. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the petition and leaving each party to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 27 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101502