<?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>1978 (6) TMI 152 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99675</link>
    <description>An interlocutory injunction will not ordinarily enforce a contract of personal service, including a branch manager&#039;s employment, where the arrangement is terminable on notice and damages are an adequate remedy. A claimed right to remain a director was also refused because the company&#039;s articles vested appointment in general meeting, the qualifying share requirement was not met, and no clear valid corporate consent was shown. Relief over share allotment was likewise declined because the challenge was not properly pleaded and non-filing of the statutory return did not by itself invalidate the allotment. The application for interim restraint was rejected in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:37:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (6) TMI 152 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99675</link>
      <description>An interlocutory injunction will not ordinarily enforce a contract of personal service, including a branch manager&#039;s employment, where the arrangement is terminable on notice and damages are an adequate remedy. A claimed right to remain a director was also refused because the company&#039;s articles vested appointment in general meeting, the qualifying share requirement was not met, and no clear valid corporate consent was shown. Relief over share allotment was likewise declined because the challenge was not properly pleaded and non-filing of the statutory return did not by itself invalidate the allotment. The application for interim restraint was rejected in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>