<?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>1999 (4) TMI 570 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106199</link>
    <description>A civil court may entertain a shareholder&#039;s suit for rectification of the company&#039;s register and interim protection where the challenge concerns alleged illegal share acquisitions affecting the register. The statutory remedy before the company law forum does not automatically exclude civil jurisdiction, especially in a complex dispute involving third-party transfers and securities-law allegations. The takeover regulations were construed purposively to prevent circumvention by indirect acquisitions, and the later disputed share purchases were treated as prima facie non-compliant, justifying restraint on their voting rights pending trial. The acquisition arising from conversion of pre-regulation debentures was excluded from that restraint because it fell outside the temporal scope of the 1994 regulations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 570 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106199</link>
      <description>A civil court may entertain a shareholder&#039;s suit for rectification of the company&#039;s register and interim protection where the challenge concerns alleged illegal share acquisitions affecting the register. The statutory remedy before the company law forum does not automatically exclude civil jurisdiction, especially in a complex dispute involving third-party transfers and securities-law allegations. The takeover regulations were construed purposively to prevent circumvention by indirect acquisitions, and the later disputed share purchases were treated as prima facie non-compliant, justifying restraint on their voting rights pending trial. The acquisition arising from conversion of pre-regulation debentures was excluded from that restraint because it fell outside the temporal scope of the 1994 regulations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>