https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102655 The availability of remedies under the Companies Act or the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act did not, by itself, bar recourse to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, because the Act's remedy was additional and not in derogation of other statutory remedies. However, a complaint could succeed only if the pleaded facts prima facie attracted the Act. On the facts, refusal to transfer shares, said to arise from a family objection and the absence of a succession certificate, did not show manipulation, restrictive or unfair trade practice, deception, or any adverse effect on competition. No relief was therefore available. en-us Fri, 09 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2019 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102655 The availability of remedies under the Companies Act or the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act did not, by itself, bar recourse to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, because the Act's remedy was additional and not in derogation of other statutory remedies. However, a complaint could succeed only if the pleaded facts prima facie attracted the Act. On the facts, refusal to transfer shares, said to arise from a family objection and the absence of a succession certificate, did not show manipulation, restrictive or unfair trade practice, deception, or any adverse effect on competition. No relief was therefore available. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 09 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102655