<?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>1962 (8) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272615</link>
    <description>A successor to a managing agency was found validly nominated, so the power to appoint a general manager was upheld, but remuneration was denied because the appointment was not shown to be bona fide and the appointee did not actually function in that role. In liquidation matters, limitation was held to run from the winding-up order, not the winding-up petition, so claims already time-barred on that date could not be revived. A balance-sheet operates as an acknowledgment only if it is properly authenticated by a duly authorised person; on the facts, no valid authority or legally effective authentication was proved, so limitation was not extended.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2018 18:10:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (8) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272615</link>
      <description>A successor to a managing agency was found validly nominated, so the power to appoint a general manager was upheld, but remuneration was denied because the appointment was not shown to be bona fide and the appointee did not actually function in that role. In liquidation matters, limitation was held to run from the winding-up order, not the winding-up petition, so claims already time-barred on that date could not be revived. A balance-sheet operates as an acknowledgment only if it is properly authenticated by a duly authorised person; on the facts, no valid authority or legally effective authentication was proved, so limitation was not extended.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>