<?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>1934 (1) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289730</link>
    <description>A mortgage bond signed only by the Secretary and Working Director failed the company&#039;s article requiring signatures of the Managing Director, Secretary and Working Director; statutory default vesting of execution in the board meant the articles&#039; signing prescription governed, so two signatures did not satisfy it. The indoor management rule could not protect the mortgagee because the bond and available information put her on constructive notice of the articles&#039; requirement. Consequently the bond was held invalid and not binding on the company; alternative grounds of ratification or equitable charge were not adjudicated on appeal and were not considered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 1934 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:21:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1934 (1) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289730</link>
      <description>A mortgage bond signed only by the Secretary and Working Director failed the company&#039;s article requiring signatures of the Managing Director, Secretary and Working Director; statutory default vesting of execution in the board meant the articles&#039; signing prescription governed, so two signatures did not satisfy it. The indoor management rule could not protect the mortgagee because the bond and available information put her on constructive notice of the articles&#039; requirement. Consequently the bond was held invalid and not binding on the company; alternative grounds of ratification or equitable charge were not adjudicated on appeal and were not considered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 1934 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>