<?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>2009 (11) TMI 511 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113529</link>
    <description>Voting rights in a banking company were held to be restrictable to the statutory ceiling under the Banking Regulation Act, but not wholly extinguished merely because prior Reserve Bank acknowledgement was absent. Rival same-day proxies could be rejected where the chairman acted on the instruments as presented and made a practical, non-arbitrary choice. The election of directors at the annual general meeting was not vitiated by notice defects where shareholders were sufficiently informed of the business and participated without objection. Declaration of the meeting results was also directed despite delayed proceedings, as the delay arose from litigation and the elections had already been conducted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 16:52:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 511 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113529</link>
      <description>Voting rights in a banking company were held to be restrictable to the statutory ceiling under the Banking Regulation Act, but not wholly extinguished merely because prior Reserve Bank acknowledgement was absent. Rival same-day proxies could be rejected where the chairman acted on the instruments as presented and made a practical, non-arbitrary choice. The election of directors at the annual general meeting was not vitiated by notice defects where shareholders were sufficiently informed of the business and participated without objection. Declaration of the meeting results was also directed despite delayed proceedings, as the delay arose from litigation and the elections had already been conducted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113529</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>