<?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>1987 (7) TMI 498 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101511</link>
    <description>The court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a private limited company against a former managing director for rendition of accounts. The court emphasized that the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under the Companies Act should be strictly construed. As the suit did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court under the Companies Act, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court&#039;s judgment, and remitted the suit for trial on merits. The parties were directed to appear before the lower court for further proceedings, and the court fee paid for the appeal was ordered to be refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:26:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 498 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101511</link>
      <description>The court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a private limited company against a former managing director for rendition of accounts. The court emphasized that the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under the Companies Act should be strictly construed. As the suit did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court under the Companies Act, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court&#039;s judgment, and remitted the suit for trial on merits. The parties were directed to appear before the lower court for further proceedings, and the court fee paid for the appeal was ordered to be refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>