https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213377 Where a director's interest was already disclosed on the company record and known to the board, non-repetition of a formal disclosure was treated as substantial compliance with the object of section 299 of the Companies Act, 1956, so the board resolution was not invalidated on that ground. The challenge also failed because the appellants showed no right, title, interest, or authority to occupy the leased premises and therefore lacked locus to question the resolution. In addition, the plaint omitted a material ratifying resolution despite the appellants' knowledge of it, and that suppression of facts weighed decisively against them as an abuse of process. en-us Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213377 Where a director's interest was already disclosed on the company record and known to the board, non-repetition of a formal disclosure was treated as substantial compliance with the object of section 299 of the Companies Act, 1956, so the board resolution was not invalidated on that ground. The challenge also failed because the appellants showed no right, title, interest, or authority to occupy the leased premises and therefore lacked locus to question the resolution. In addition, the plaint omitted a material ratifying resolution despite the appellants' knowledge of it, and that suppression of facts weighed decisively against them as an abuse of process. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213377