https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399766 Director appointments were assessed against the distinction between additional and independent directors, with corporate filings supporting the status of certain respondents as independent directors. Removal of the petitioners was treated as invalid because no evidence established service of meeting notices and the articles protected the permanent director from removal except by voluntary resignation. The prescribed governance arrangement reinstates the petitioners, retains two respondents as directors, requires joint operation of the company bank account, and denies shareholder recognition where proper share-allotment procedures were not evidenced. en-us Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Oct 2020 10:08:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399766 Director appointments were assessed against the distinction between additional and independent directors, with corporate filings supporting the status of certain respondents as independent directors. Removal of the petitioners was treated as invalid because no evidence established service of meeting notices and the articles protected the permanent director from removal except by voluntary resignation. The prescribed governance arrangement reinstates the petitioners, retains two respondents as directors, requires joint operation of the company bank account, and denies shareholder recognition where proper share-allotment procedures were not evidenced. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399766