<?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 (7) TMI 371 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110476</link>
    <description>Termination of a Managing Director under contractual Articles of Association falls outside writ jurisdiction where no mandatory statutory provision is breached. Article 73 governed appointment and removal, and the Articles were treated as contractual rather than statutory. As the termination carried no stigma and the supporting material formed the basis of an administrative decision within that contractual framework, no arbitrariness or breach of natural justice warranting writ relief arose. Enforcement of personal service rights lay in the contractual field, with damages as the ordinary remedy; the Companies Act provision concerning removal was not pressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:22:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 371 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110476</link>
      <description>Termination of a Managing Director under contractual Articles of Association falls outside writ jurisdiction where no mandatory statutory provision is breached. Article 73 governed appointment and removal, and the Articles were treated as contractual rather than statutory. As the termination carried no stigma and the supporting material formed the basis of an administrative decision within that contractual framework, no arbitrariness or breach of natural justice warranting writ relief arose. Enforcement of personal service rights lay in the contractual field, with damages as the ordinary remedy; the Companies Act provision concerning removal was not pressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>