Dear All,
By the judgment of the Supreme Court, we could make out the following point:
"Decisions once arrived at do not need confirmation"
It is the usual corporate secretarial procedure to read over, at the next meeting the decisions and resolutions of the preceding one. At the next meetings there might be considerable diversity of opinion as to the votes admitted at the previous meeting. But the intention of the judgment was that, it is not necessary to confirm the actions done at the previous meeting which was legally done previously.
Further, the chairman who signs the minutes at the next meeting need not necessarily have been the chairman of the previous meeting or indeed even present at the Meeting of which the minutes are a record. His action in signing them is merely to record that they are a correct record of the business transacted.
However, as correctly pointed out by our professional friends, confirmation of the minutes as an accurate record of the decisions made at the previous meeting is usually obtained by submitting them to the chairman of the next meeting for signature.
Further, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Raja Karthik, this will bring more clarity to the business transacted and to avoid the malafide intention of someone.