<?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>1958 (5) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172251</link>
    <description>Unanimous consent of directors may suffice for dealings with the company where the articles and settled practice permit such transactions, and no automatic vacation of office follows merely because directors carried on business with the company. A general resolution setting out a future trading scheme is not itself an interested contract or arrangement requiring disqualification from voting, and a prohibition on entering new futures does not, without clear wording, void pre-existing outstanding futures. The alleged settlement, payments, fraud, misapplication of funds, and debt claims were not established on the material before the court, so no just and equitable ground for winding up or inability to pay debts was made out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:28:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393522" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (5) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172251</link>
      <description>Unanimous consent of directors may suffice for dealings with the company where the articles and settled practice permit such transactions, and no automatic vacation of office follows merely because directors carried on business with the company. A general resolution setting out a future trading scheme is not itself an interested contract or arrangement requiring disqualification from voting, and a prohibition on entering new futures does not, without clear wording, void pre-existing outstanding futures. The alleged settlement, payments, fraud, misapplication of funds, and debt claims were not established on the material before the court, so no just and equitable ground for winding up or inability to pay debts was made out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>