The compensation for mismanagement as well as for oppression does not exist in the first place when there is no proof of the act that is alleged. The case also deals with the rules governing annual meetings of a body corporate.
This Case establishes the point that acting as the director of any corporation does not make one liable for unforeseen mistakes or mistakes made while acting in the best interest of the firm. If a person undertakes an action believing it to be in the best interests of the firm, after exercising due diligence the action cannot be recorded as misrepresentation or breach of trust.
This write-up examines the copyright infringement claim made by t-series against ROPOSO in the light of the right of an intermediary and the concept of Safe Harbour Protection. It also analyses the liability of an intermediary with the help of conflicting decisions.
This case talks about the question that whether it is necessary to give prior notice with all particulars attached to it for the meeting to be conducted to the directors of the Company or not?
The author in this case analyzes the case of bates v. Director of Revenue and its judgment it further discusses whether the appellant comes under the definition of the successor or not in the present case.
This case is about whether the company who is a lessee of Central government can be exempted from the tax or its corporate personality can be used as a defence by the State government to levy tax.
The given case is about the protection of the Employees payments during liquidation proceedings. It revolves around the question of jurisdiction concerned with the claim of employees interest in the liquidation equal to that of the company’s creditors.
The case mentioned is concerned with the dilemma about the jurisdiction of the court with reference to Indian Trusts Act, 1982. The current petition is filed over a dispute for the maintainability of a suit and the right jurisdiction for the same.
The above mentioned case revolves around the rules and laws of the Companies Act. It highlights the misfeasance done by people by the fraudulent use of the Indian Companies Act. The managing agents of the company misused the law for their own benefit over the public good.
The case of Lee v Lee Air Farming Ltd. revolves around the principle of Separate Entity regarding the Company Law established in the landmark case of Salomon v. Salomon & Co Ltd also known as the Salomon Principle.
