<?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>2002 (10) TMI 682 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108550</link>
    <description>Contractual rights affecting a company&#039;s internal management are enforceable against the company only when reflected in the articles of association; a shareholders&#039; agreement alone could not restrain resignations from the board or override the articles. Where the articles required a specified shareholder&#039;s affirmative assent for board changes, appointments made without that assent were contrary to the articles and invalid. Section 290 of the Companies Act, 1956 protected acts of a de facto director only until the company was notified of the appointment&#039;s invalidity. A board meeting held without the required nominee directors, proper notice, or quorum could not validly approve annual accounts when the articles made those requirements mandatory. Interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was available to preserve contractual and article-based rights pending arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:28:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145567" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 682 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108550</link>
      <description>Contractual rights affecting a company&#039;s internal management are enforceable against the company only when reflected in the articles of association; a shareholders&#039; agreement alone could not restrain resignations from the board or override the articles. Where the articles required a specified shareholder&#039;s affirmative assent for board changes, appointments made without that assent were contrary to the articles and invalid. Section 290 of the Companies Act, 1956 protected acts of a de facto director only until the company was notified of the appointment&#039;s invalidity. A board meeting held without the required nominee directors, proper notice, or quorum could not validly approve annual accounts when the articles made those requirements mandatory. Interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was available to preserve contractual and article-based rights pending arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108550</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>