<?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>1958 (10) TMI 50 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199503</link>
    <description>A shareholder whose name stands in the register, including an Official Trustee entered as a corporation sole, is entitled to vote in person or by proxy, and a chairman cannot reject a valid written proxy merely by invoking Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Companies Act did not bar a civil suit challenging the legality of proceedings and resolutions passed at an annual general meeting, because the dispute concerned infringement of voting rights and the validity of completed acts rather than a failure to convene a meeting. The shareholders therefore had cause of action and locus to seek declaratory and consequential relief, and the civil court&#039;s jurisdiction was not excluded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:56:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (10) TMI 50 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199503</link>
      <description>A shareholder whose name stands in the register, including an Official Trustee entered as a corporation sole, is entitled to vote in person or by proxy, and a chairman cannot reject a valid written proxy merely by invoking Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Companies Act did not bar a civil suit challenging the legality of proceedings and resolutions passed at an annual general meeting, because the dispute concerned infringement of voting rights and the validity of completed acts rather than a failure to convene a meeting. The shareholders therefore had cause of action and locus to seek declaratory and consequential relief, and the civil court&#039;s jurisdiction was not excluded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>