https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102681 The High Court upheld the Company Law Board's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the termination of a distributorship agreement, emphasizing the distinction between the appellant's roles as a shareholder/director and the distributorship agreement. The Court highlighted that the distributorship issue fell outside the scope of Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, noting the Board of Directors' discretion in making decisions for the company's best interests. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court deferring any actions on the distributorship agreement for two weeks to allow for potential legal recourse. en-us Fri, 17 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:10:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102681 The High Court upheld the Company Law Board's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the termination of a distributorship agreement, emphasizing the distinction between the appellant's roles as a shareholder/director and the distributorship agreement. The Court highlighted that the distributorship issue fell outside the scope of Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, noting the Board of Directors' discretion in making decisions for the company's best interests. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court deferring any actions on the distributorship agreement for two weeks to allow for potential legal recourse. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102681