<?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>1990 (4) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103114</link>
    <description>Courts will ordinarily not interfere with the internal management of a company or association unless the impugned action is shown prima facie to be ultra vires, fraudulent or otherwise illegal. On the facts, the enrolment of new members was treated as valid because the applications were scrutinised, recommended and approved through the association&#039;s usual process, and no prima facie mala fides were shown. The challenges to the annual general meeting notice, agenda and accounts also failed, as the alleged irregularities did not justify injunctive relief. The change of election officer and conduct of the election process were likewise found unobjectionable, so no interlocutory restraint was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:53:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (4) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103114</link>
      <description>Courts will ordinarily not interfere with the internal management of a company or association unless the impugned action is shown prima facie to be ultra vires, fraudulent or otherwise illegal. On the facts, the enrolment of new members was treated as valid because the applications were scrutinised, recommended and approved through the association&#039;s usual process, and no prima facie mala fides were shown. The challenges to the annual general meeting notice, agenda and accounts also failed, as the alleged irregularities did not justify injunctive relief. The change of election officer and conduct of the election process were likewise found unobjectionable, so no interlocutory restraint was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>