TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal orders status quo in shareholding dispute; petitioner's rights infringed</h1> The tribunal ordered to maintain the status quo regarding the shareholding pattern and company properties in a case involving a petition for ad interim ... Grant of status-quo ante - transfer of shares - HELD THAT:- Despite an advance copy of the Petition being served upon the Respondent as well as the date of moving this Petition also informed to the Respondents in advance, none for the Respondents is present. In the circumstances status- quo as of today to be maintained in relation to the shareholding pattern as well as in relation to the properties of the 1st Respondent Company. Let the copy of this order be duly communicated to the Respondents by the Petitioner within a period of week from today and the reply of the Respondents also be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Post this matter on 03.04.2020. Issues involved:Petition for ad interim relief regarding shareholding pattern maintenance and cancellation of shares approval.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a petition seeking ad interim relief regarding the maintenance of the shareholding pattern of a company and the cancellation of approved shares. The petitioner's counsel requested status quo ante as of a specific date due to the cancellation of shares approved in previous board meetings. The petitioner's rights to the shares in the company were allegedly being infringed. The counsel highlighted that the petition was duly served on the respondents, and proof of service was filed. Despite the advance notice and service of the petition, none of the respondents were present during the proceedings. In light of this, the tribunal ordered that the status quo be maintained concerning the shareholding pattern and the company's properties. The petitioner was instructed to communicate the order to the respondents within a week, and the respondents were given four weeks to file a reply. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on a specific date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
