<?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>2008 (1) TMI 953 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196391</link>
    <description>Interim regulation of company affairs under the Companies Act permitted the Company Law Board to allow the managing director to operate the company bank account in accordance with the articles of association, while requiring disclosure of account statements to the other directors. Clause 41 authorised the managing director to operate bank accounts subject to board directions, and prior joint cheque-signing did not displace that authority. Allegations of possible misuse and profit manipulation were not supported sufficiently to justify interference with the interim arrangement. As the order conformed to the articles and included safeguards, no substantial question of law arose; the appeal and connected motion were dismissed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:47:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 953 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196391</link>
      <description>Interim regulation of company affairs under the Companies Act permitted the Company Law Board to allow the managing director to operate the company bank account in accordance with the articles of association, while requiring disclosure of account statements to the other directors. Clause 41 authorised the managing director to operate bank accounts subject to board directions, and prior joint cheque-signing did not displace that authority. Allegations of possible misuse and profit manipulation were not supported sufficiently to justify interference with the interim arrangement. As the order conformed to the articles and included safeguards, no substantial question of law arose; the appeal and connected motion were dismissed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>