<?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>1928 (2) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199501</link>
    <description>The text addresses director nondisclosure, secret profits, surcharge claims, commissions and removal/records relief. On disclosure, the court applied fiduciary duty principles and held nondisclosure alone did not establish civil liability where the board knew the facts or plaintiffs failed to prove concealment; mortgage and antecedent loans were not fraudulent and defendants were exonerated. On leases, the court found an undisclosed interest and secret profit on the 1914-15 lease and awarded a reduced account against the second defendant, but rejected most other lease fraud claims for lack of proof. Surcharges for negotiated loan interest and time-barred debts were largely deleted; commissions for 1915-17 were not forfeited, while removal and delivery of records were ordered with modified dates.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1928 (2) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199501</link>
      <description>The text addresses director nondisclosure, secret profits, surcharge claims, commissions and removal/records relief. On disclosure, the court applied fiduciary duty principles and held nondisclosure alone did not establish civil liability where the board knew the facts or plaintiffs failed to prove concealment; mortgage and antecedent loans were not fraudulent and defendants were exonerated. On leases, the court found an undisclosed interest and secret profit on the 1914-15 lease and awarded a reduced account against the second defendant, but rejected most other lease fraud claims for lack of proof. Surcharges for negotiated loan interest and time-barred debts were largely deleted; commissions for 1915-17 were not forfeited, while removal and delivery of records were ordered with modified dates.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199501</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>