Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6761 to 6780 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether a director without shareholding or express company authorization had locus standi to sue for injunctions restraining others from exercising shareholder/director rights and to effectively litigate alleged corporate wrongs. The court held that a company is a distinct legal entity and any action for wrongs to the company must be instituted by the company itself or by a duly authorized person; the plaintiff's only privity was a loan agreement already repaid and no relief was founded on it. As the suit impermissibly sought interference in internal corporate governance without authorization, the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC; the suit was dismissed. - HC
The dominant issue was whether a director without shareholding or express company authorization had locus standi to sue for injunctions restraining others from exercising shareholder/director rights and to effectively litigate alleged corporate wrongs. The court held that a company is a distinct legal entity and any action for wrongs to the company must be instituted by the company itself or by a duly authorized person; the plaintiff's only privity was a loan agreement already repaid and no relief was founded on it. As the suit impermissibly sought interference in internal corporate governance without authorization, the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC; the suit was dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
