https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190848 Failure to file notice of a change among directors within the time mentioned in the form did not constitute an offence under Section 87 of the Companies Act. The statutory provision required notice of changes in directors, but it did not prescribe any fixed filing period, and the foot-note in the form used only the permissive word "should". In the absence of a prescribed time limit, default could not be treated as arising automatically from a director's resignation. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 1930 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Mar 2017 11:57:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190848 Failure to file notice of a change among directors within the time mentioned in the form did not constitute an offence under Section 87 of the Companies Act. The statutory provision required notice of changes in directors, but it did not prescribe any fixed filing period, and the foot-note in the form used only the permissive word "should". In the absence of a prescribed time limit, default could not be treated as arising automatically from a director's resignation. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 19 Nov 1930 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190848