Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3301 to 3320 of 96257 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
