https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102049 The court dismissed both writ petitions seeking to prevent the transfer of shares by directors/shareholders in a company. The court found that the transfer of shares had already occurred with the necessary approval, making the petitions moot. It held that the first respondent's jurisdiction was limited to enforcing its agreement with the company and could not invalidate transfers. Allegations of mala fides in the approval process were deemed unsubstantiated, and the court clarified that Article 226 was not the appropriate avenue for disputes between private parties. The court emphasized that the dispute was a private matter among shareholders and not suitable for resolution through writ jurisdiction. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:39:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102049 The court dismissed both writ petitions seeking to prevent the transfer of shares by directors/shareholders in a company. The court found that the transfer of shares had already occurred with the necessary approval, making the petitions moot. It held that the first respondent's jurisdiction was limited to enforcing its agreement with the company and could not invalidate transfers. Allegations of mala fides in the approval process were deemed unsubstantiated, and the court clarified that Article 226 was not the appropriate avenue for disputes between private parties. The court emphasized that the dispute was a private matter among shareholders and not suitable for resolution through writ jurisdiction. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 09 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102049