<?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>2015 (5) TMI 522 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259648</link>
    <description>A special employment agreement permitting termination on notice and cure of defaults governed the Managing Director&#039;s exit, and the contractual notice was upheld because it followed that agreed procedure and was supported by board concerns over performance, targets, and financial transparency. General promoter protections could not override the voluntarily executed special agreement, so no illegality in the termination was shown. On the affidavit issue, an incorrect date by itself was treated as carelessness rather than perjury; absent a deliberate false statement on a material fact with intent to give false evidence, the ingredients of perjury were not satisfied and proceedings were not initiated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2015 06:20:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 522 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259648</link>
      <description>A special employment agreement permitting termination on notice and cure of defaults governed the Managing Director&#039;s exit, and the contractual notice was upheld because it followed that agreed procedure and was supported by board concerns over performance, targets, and financial transparency. General promoter protections could not override the voluntarily executed special agreement, so no illegality in the termination was shown. On the affidavit issue, an incorrect date by itself was treated as carelessness rather than perjury; absent a deliberate false statement on a material fact with intent to give false evidence, the ingredients of perjury were not satisfied and proceedings were not initiated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>