<?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>2010 (10) TMI 919 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127001</link>
    <description>An informal family arrangement or unimplemented succession proposal does not create an enforceable right to alter a company&#039;s internal governance, and members cannot expectations beyond the company&#039;s constitution. By contrast, a board action that curtailed a director&#039;s functions without prior notice, agenda or a fair opportunity to respond was treated as arbitrary and lacking probity, justifying equitable interference in oppression proceedings and restoration of the earlier functional allocation. The appointments of other directors were left undisturbed because they had board approval and governmental clearance, and no basis was shown for imposing a permanent independent chairman.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:45:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 919 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127001</link>
      <description>An informal family arrangement or unimplemented succession proposal does not create an enforceable right to alter a company&#039;s internal governance, and members cannot expectations beyond the company&#039;s constitution. By contrast, a board action that curtailed a director&#039;s functions without prior notice, agenda or a fair opportunity to respond was treated as arbitrary and lacking probity, justifying equitable interference in oppression proceedings and restoration of the earlier functional allocation. The appointments of other directors were left undisturbed because they had board approval and governmental clearance, and no basis was shown for imposing a permanent independent chairman.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>