Imported cement concessional duty exemption under Notification 4/2006 challenged over RSP misdeclaration; demand, interest and s.114A penalty set asid...
Body-worn camera recordings for Customs baggage checks: new SOP mandates full passenger-interaction capture, secure storage, privacy safeguards, stric...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
