<?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>1994 (6) TMI 178 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103226</link>
    <description>Directors&#039; fiduciary powers cannot be used merely to secure or preserve control for themselves or their associates, and a proposed acquisition funded through corporate resources may be prima facie objectionable if it serves an extraneous purpose. The document explains that, where breach of trust is shown at the interim stage, equitable relief may continue even if any alleged commercial benefit to the company is only incidental or uncertain. On the facts discussed, the restraint on purchasing shares of the target company was maintained because the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the injunction pending final determination in the company petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:34:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (6) TMI 178 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103226</link>
      <description>Directors&#039; fiduciary powers cannot be used merely to secure or preserve control for themselves or their associates, and a proposed acquisition funded through corporate resources may be prima facie objectionable if it serves an extraneous purpose. The document explains that, where breach of trust is shown at the interim stage, equitable relief may continue even if any alleged commercial benefit to the company is only incidental or uncertain. On the facts discussed, the restraint on purchasing shares of the target company was maintained because the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the injunction pending final determination in the company petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>