<?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>1997 (8) TMI 404 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103446</link>
    <description>Interim injunction against implementation of extraordinary general meeting resolutions requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury; applying that test, the Court found no sufficient prima facie right or credible irreversible prejudice and declined interim protection. The civil suit was also viewed as prima facie barred by the securities-law jurisdictional scheme because the dispute substantially concerned regulatory compliance already before the competent authority. On disclosure, the notice convening the meeting and the explanatory statement were not shown to be misleading or to suppress material facts, so interim restraint was unwarranted. The ad interim order was vacated, subject to no final view on the merits of the main suit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:12:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 404 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103446</link>
      <description>Interim injunction against implementation of extraordinary general meeting resolutions requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury; applying that test, the Court found no sufficient prima facie right or credible irreversible prejudice and declined interim protection. The civil suit was also viewed as prima facie barred by the securities-law jurisdictional scheme because the dispute substantially concerned regulatory compliance already before the competent authority. On disclosure, the notice convening the meeting and the explanatory statement were not shown to be misleading or to suppress material facts, so interim restraint was unwarranted. The ad interim order was vacated, subject to no final view on the merits of the main suit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>