<?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>2016 (12) TMI 1896 - NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307765</link>
    <description>A registered cooperative credit society has a separate legal identity, so service is ordinarily rendered by the society itself and ex-Secretary, ex-President and other office bearers do not become service providers merely by holding office, because they lack privity of contract with depositors. Where the society is used as a cloak for fraud, illegality or misfeasance, the corporate veil may be lifted and personal liability may be fastened on the office bearers on the facts proved. The operative distinction is therefore between ordinary corporate immunity for office bearers and exceptional personal responsibility where deceitful conduct is established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 May 2023 21:29:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=712805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1896 - NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307765</link>
      <description>A registered cooperative credit society has a separate legal identity, so service is ordinarily rendered by the society itself and ex-Secretary, ex-President and other office bearers do not become service providers merely by holding office, because they lack privity of contract with depositors. Where the society is used as a cloak for fraud, illegality or misfeasance, the corporate veil may be lifted and personal liability may be fastened on the office bearers on the facts proved. The operative distinction is therefore between ordinary corporate immunity for office bearers and exceptional personal responsibility where deceitful conduct is established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>