<?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>2017 (8) TMI 1080 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347022</link>
    <description>A chartered accountant&#039;s resignation as a director was treated as effective when tendered or communicated, in the absence of any contrary provision in the company&#039;s articles or memorandum. Because the public issue opened after the resignation, his name should not have appeared in the prospectus. The court also held that proof of actual investor deception was unnecessary once he had lent his name to the prospectus, as the misconduct was complete on participation. The finding of other misconduct was affirmed and the recommendation to remove his name from the register of members for three months was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:57:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1080 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347022</link>
      <description>A chartered accountant&#039;s resignation as a director was treated as effective when tendered or communicated, in the absence of any contrary provision in the company&#039;s articles or memorandum. Because the public issue opened after the resignation, his name should not have appeared in the prospectus. The court also held that proof of actual investor deception was unnecessary once he had lent his name to the prospectus, as the misconduct was complete on participation. The finding of other misconduct was affirmed and the recommendation to remove his name from the register of members for three months was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>