Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC set aside the District Judge's interim injunction restraining the Appellant Company from acting on the agenda of Board and General Meetings concerning the Respondent's removal as a Director. The court held that the injunction was an inappropriate exercise of discretion under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as it pre-emptively interfered with statutory rights under the Companies Act, 2013. The notices for the meetings, though challenged for insufficient notice and particulars, fell within the proviso to Section 173(3) permitting shorter notice for urgent business. The injunction improperly stalled lawful corporate governance and granted relief akin to final adjudication without proper consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable harm. The HC emphasized that challenges to such meetings should be addressed post facto, not by restraining their convening. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was quashed.
The HC set aside the District Judge's interim injunction restraining the Appellant Company from acting on the agenda of Board and General Meetings concerning the Respondent's removal as a Director. The court held that the injunction was an inappropriate exercise of discretion under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as it pre-emptively interfered with statutory rights under the Companies Act, 2013. The notices for the meetings, though challenged for insufficient notice and particulars, fell within the proviso to Section 173(3) permitting shorter notice for urgent business. The injunction improperly stalled lawful corporate governance and granted relief akin to final adjudication without proper consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable harm. The HC emphasized that challenges to such meetings should be addressed post facto, not by restraining their convening. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.