TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the testamentary court had jurisdiction to entertain applications seeking directions against the company and its chairman in relation to a proposed acquisition, including service of notice on a non-party, production of documents and interim restraint, for the alleged protection of the deceased's estate.
Analysis: The Court held that in a probate proceeding its primary function is to examine the genuineness of the will and, under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to protect the estate by appointing an administrator pendente lite where necessary. It accepted that a company is a separate juristic entity and that a shareholder has no interest in the company's assets; therefore the company's internal management and business decisions could not be treated as part of the deceased's estate. The Court further held that the proposed acquisition decision fell within the exclusive powers of the board of directors under the Companies Act, 2013 and was not subject to control by the probate court or by the promoter's alleged controlling interest. It also held that no injunction could be issued against a stranger to the probate proceeding and no foreign issue concerning company management could be adjudicated in that forum. The newspaper material, even assuming some supporting documents were later filed, did not alter the basic jurisdictional bar.
Conclusion: The applications were not maintainable before the testamentary court and the reliefs sought could not be granted in that proceeding.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
