<?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>1960 (1) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275850</link>
    <description>A dispute over the validity of a nominee&#039;s candidature in a co-operative society election was treated as falling within the expression &quot;dispute touching the business&quot; of the society because election of directors is part of that business and the nomination stage is inseparable from the election process. The Court also applied the settled mandatory-versus-directory test and held that the rule fixing a time-limit for receipt of delegates was directory, since it was aimed at orderly administration, carried no forfeiture consequence, and was supported by harmonious reading with the bye-laws. On that basis, late acceptance of the nomination was not invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (1) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275850</link>
      <description>A dispute over the validity of a nominee&#039;s candidature in a co-operative society election was treated as falling within the expression &quot;dispute touching the business&quot; of the society because election of directors is part of that business and the nomination stage is inseparable from the election process. The Court also applied the settled mandatory-versus-directory test and held that the rule fixing a time-limit for receipt of delegates was directory, since it was aimed at orderly administration, carried no forfeiture consequence, and was supported by harmonious reading with the bye-laws. On that basis, late acceptance of the nomination was not invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>