<?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>2013 (10) TMI 894 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238439</link>
    <description>The Court found in favor of the petitioner in a case involving a show cause notice issued by the respondent under the Companies Act 1956. The petitioner, appointed as an Additional Director, had resigned before the next Annual General Meeting. Despite the lack of formal acceptance of resignation, the Court held that the petitioner&#039;s directorship had legally ended with the expiration of his tenure as an Additional Director. Consequently, the show cause notice against the petitioner was deemed ineffective, and relief was granted from the proposed proceedings. The judgment clarified the legal position on Additional Director appointments and their tenure under the Companies Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 07:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 894 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238439</link>
      <description>The Court found in favor of the petitioner in a case involving a show cause notice issued by the respondent under the Companies Act 1956. The petitioner, appointed as an Additional Director, had resigned before the next Annual General Meeting. Despite the lack of formal acceptance of resignation, the Court held that the petitioner&#039;s directorship had legally ended with the expiration of his tenure as an Additional Director. Consequently, the show cause notice against the petitioner was deemed ineffective, and relief was granted from the proposed proceedings. The judgment clarified the legal position on Additional Director appointments and their tenure under the Companies Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>