<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1975 (3) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99224</link>
    <description>Section 186 of the Companies Act permits the court to order a company meeting to be called, held and conducted where it is impracticable to do so in the prescribed manner, and to give ancillary directions only as part of that statutory exercise. Where requisitionists sought only appointment of a chairman and production of records, but did not ask for an order convening the meeting, the court could not grant those ancillary directions independently. A subsisting injunction restraining the company from holding a general meeting also meant the requested relief would have operated in breach of an existing court order. The petition was therefore not maintainable as framed and the relief was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (3) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99224</link>
      <description>Section 186 of the Companies Act permits the court to order a company meeting to be called, held and conducted where it is impracticable to do so in the prescribed manner, and to give ancillary directions only as part of that statutory exercise. Where requisitionists sought only appointment of a chairman and production of records, but did not ask for an order convening the meeting, the court could not grant those ancillary directions independently. A subsisting injunction restraining the company from holding a general meeting also meant the requested relief would have operated in breach of an existing court order. The petition was therefore not maintainable as framed and the relief was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>