https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104323 A board resolution authorising proceedings against one company did not extend to defendants 2 and 3, and the shareholder arrangement did not create direct privity of contract with the plaintiff. The limitation period for recovery of advance paid for undelivered goods ran from the date delivery ought to have been made under Article 13 of the Limitation Act, and the later agreement did not postpone that start date; on the facts stated, the claim was time-barred. The 24-1-1981 agreement was treated as a share-transfer arrangement and could not impose supply obligations on the company contrary to proved contractual terms and statutory limits on interested directors. The alleged advance and entitlement to interest were not proved on the evidence described. en-us Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:46:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104323 A board resolution authorising proceedings against one company did not extend to defendants 2 and 3, and the shareholder arrangement did not create direct privity of contract with the plaintiff. The limitation period for recovery of advance paid for undelivered goods ran from the date delivery ought to have been made under Article 13 of the Limitation Act, and the later agreement did not postpone that start date; on the facts stated, the claim was time-barred. The 24-1-1981 agreement was treated as a share-transfer arrangement and could not impose supply obligations on the company contrary to proved contractual terms and statutory limits on interested directors. The alleged advance and entitlement to interest were not proved on the evidence described. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104323