<?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>1995 (9) TMI 227 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102998</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court permitted the 25th annual general meeting to proceed with resolutions other than 10, 11, and 12, directing the confidentiality of the disputed resolutions&#039; voting results. Resolutions 10, 11, and 12 were upheld as they garnered significant shareholder support, including from financial institutions. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement were noted but did not impede resolution implementation. The court validated the adjournment of the meeting and rejected claims of fund misappropriation for the beer project. The preferential share allotment and resolutions&#039; approval by shareholders were deemed valid, emphasizing corporate democracy. All appeals were dismissed, affirming the resolutions&#039; validity and implementation for the company&#039;s advancement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:14:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 227 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102998</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court permitted the 25th annual general meeting to proceed with resolutions other than 10, 11, and 12, directing the confidentiality of the disputed resolutions&#039; voting results. Resolutions 10, 11, and 12 were upheld as they garnered significant shareholder support, including from financial institutions. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement were noted but did not impede resolution implementation. The court validated the adjournment of the meeting and rejected claims of fund misappropriation for the beer project. The preferential share allotment and resolutions&#039; approval by shareholders were deemed valid, emphasizing corporate democracy. All appeals were dismissed, affirming the resolutions&#039; validity and implementation for the company&#039;s advancement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>