Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2741 to 2760 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court addressed the jurisdictional conflict between Civil Court and NCLT/NCLAT in a dispute over share transfer/title. The plaint was rejected based on SPA's Clause 8, citing Companies Act, 2013. Court held SPA mandated arbitration but didn't exclude Civil Court jurisdiction. The objection on Arbitration Act's Section 11 appointment was premature. Companies Act sections don't bar the Civil Court from hearing share disputes. NCLT isn't suitable for individual share disputes. The order rejecting the plaint was overturned as Companies Act sections didn't apply.
The High Court addressed the jurisdictional conflict between Civil Court and NCLT/NCLAT in a dispute over share transfer/title. The plaint was rejected based on SPA's Clause 8, citing Companies Act, 2013. Court held SPA mandated arbitration but didn't exclude Civil Court jurisdiction. The objection on Arbitration Act's Section 11 appointment was premature. Companies Act sections don't bar the Civil Court from hearing share disputes. NCLT isn't suitable for individual share disputes. The order rejecting the plaint was overturned as Companies Act sections didn't apply.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.