https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100009 The plaintiffs' petition seeking an interim injunction to prevent interference with the managing director's role in a public limited company was dismissed. The court held that the board had the authority to remove the managing director, rejecting claims of unauthorized removal. It was determined that the defendants effectively managed the company, tipping the balance of convenience against granting the injunction. The court also ruled that Central Govt. concurrence was not required for the managing director's removal, supporting the board's power in appointment decisions. The denial of the injunction was further justified by the managing director's impending term expiration. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:26:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100009 The plaintiffs' petition seeking an interim injunction to prevent interference with the managing director's role in a public limited company was dismissed. The court held that the board had the authority to remove the managing director, rejecting claims of unauthorized removal. It was determined that the defendants effectively managed the company, tipping the balance of convenience against granting the injunction. The court also ruled that Central Govt. concurrence was not required for the managing director's removal, supporting the board's power in appointment decisions. The denial of the injunction was further justified by the managing director's impending term expiration. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 23 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100009