Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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.