https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109587 Shareholders have standing to challenge the proposed appointment of directors alleged to be disqualified because they have a direct interest in lawful corporate management and the company's protection from tainted appointments. Section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956 applies to directors already in office where its language covers a person who is already a director and a company's continuing repayment default. A repayment rescheduling order under the RBI Act changes the contractual due date, so the continuing-default period is computed from that rescheduled date. Where default persists thereafter, director disqualification continues to apply; interim status quo protection may remain pending disposal of the suit. en-us Tue, 20 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:24:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109587 Shareholders have standing to challenge the proposed appointment of directors alleged to be disqualified because they have a direct interest in lawful corporate management and the company's protection from tainted appointments. Section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956 applies to directors already in office where its language covers a person who is already a director and a company's continuing repayment default. A repayment rescheduling order under the RBI Act changes the contractual due date, so the continuing-default period is computed from that rescheduled date. Where default persists thereafter, director disqualification continues to apply; interim status quo protection may remain pending disposal of the suit. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 20 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109587