https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102190 Disputed corporate facts and the availability of remedies under the Companies Act, 1956 meant writ relief under Article 226 was unavailable, especially where the same controversy had already been rejected and constructive res judicata applied. The Court held that the petitioner could not reopen the matter by adding new parties and should pursue the statutory company-law remedies instead. On the FERA point, the alleged transfer concerned a foreign company and non-resident transaction, with no reliable material showing a transfer in the company records or a proven transfer of interest in a business in India. Section 26(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was therefore not shown to be attracted on the pleaded facts. en-us Fri, 11 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:22:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102190 Disputed corporate facts and the availability of remedies under the Companies Act, 1956 meant writ relief under Article 226 was unavailable, especially where the same controversy had already been rejected and constructive res judicata applied. The Court held that the petitioner could not reopen the matter by adding new parties and should pursue the statutory company-law remedies instead. On the FERA point, the alleged transfer concerned a foreign company and non-resident transaction, with no reliable material showing a transfer in the company records or a proven transfer of interest in a business in India. Section 26(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was therefore not shown to be attracted on the pleaded facts. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 11 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102190