https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102107 The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, ruling that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case and was not entitled to the relief sought. The court found that the plaintiff had automatically vacated his directorship under section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act for missing three consecutive board meetings without leave. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiff lacked the authority to nominate directors as he did not hold the required 10% share capital. The decision was made without prejudice to the final merits of the case. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:02:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102107 The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, ruling that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case and was not entitled to the relief sought. The court found that the plaintiff had automatically vacated his directorship under section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act for missing three consecutive board meetings without leave. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiff lacked the authority to nominate directors as he did not hold the required 10% share capital. The decision was made without prejudice to the final merits of the case. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 24 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102107