<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1993 (7) TMI 280 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103206</link>
    <description>A completed corporate transfer, supported by board records, statutory balance-sheets, annual reports and governmental approval, was treated as final and binding, leaving the company independent of the plaintiffs&#039; control. The assignment of three liquor brands under a registered deed for consideration was held valid and effective, with no subsisting proprietary claim remaining where no substantive relief was sought to set it aside. The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for interim injunction because the pleadings were deficient, later affidavits expanded the case impermissibly, and material documents were suppressed. Allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, fabrication of minutes and challenge to meetings were not proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:02:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (7) TMI 280 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103206</link>
      <description>A completed corporate transfer, supported by board records, statutory balance-sheets, annual reports and governmental approval, was treated as final and binding, leaving the company independent of the plaintiffs&#039; control. The assignment of three liquor brands under a registered deed for consideration was held valid and effective, with no subsisting proprietary claim remaining where no substantive relief was sought to set it aside. The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for interim injunction because the pleadings were deficient, later affidavits expanded the case impermissibly, and material documents were suppressed. Allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, fabrication of minutes and challenge to meetings were not proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>