<?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>1963 (11) TMI 95 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195631</link>
    <description>The court upheld the lower courts&#039; decision that the suit challenging the election proceedings of Directors in a company was competent and maintainable. The appellant&#039;s arguments regarding internal management issues and lack of consequential relief were rejected. The court emphasized the distinction between individual and corporate membership rights of shareholders, affirming the invalidity of the 3rd defendant&#039;s election as Director.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2017 17:31:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (11) TMI 95 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195631</link>
      <description>The court upheld the lower courts&#039; decision that the suit challenging the election proceedings of Directors in a company was competent and maintainable. The appellant&#039;s arguments regarding internal management issues and lack of consequential relief were rejected. The court emphasized the distinction between individual and corporate membership rights of shareholders, affirming the invalidity of the 3rd defendant&#039;s election as Director.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>