<?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>2004 (11) TMI 331 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110265</link>
    <description>The Company Law Board&#039;s recognition of voting by proxies of power of attorney holders at the annual general meeting was upheld because it accorded with an existing decree recognising that voting right, and no objection had been raised before the election. The later Reserve Bank of India communication refusing recognition of a further share transfer could not affect the legality of the order because it had not been served on the parties. In proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956, concerning oppression and mismanagement, the Board&#039;s directions to secure proper management were therefore sustained, and the closure of the company petition after the election of directors was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:12:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 331 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110265</link>
      <description>The Company Law Board&#039;s recognition of voting by proxies of power of attorney holders at the annual general meeting was upheld because it accorded with an existing decree recognising that voting right, and no objection had been raised before the election. The later Reserve Bank of India communication refusing recognition of a further share transfer could not affect the legality of the order because it had not been served on the parties. In proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956, concerning oppression and mismanagement, the Board&#039;s directions to secure proper management were therefore sustained, and the closure of the company petition after the election of directors was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110265</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>