https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106284 The Court upheld the settlement agreement's validity, emphasizing parties' obligations and rejecting attempts to avoid compliance. The agreement required sale and purchase of shares, with valuation by a specified valuer. The Court found objections contrary to the settlement's intent impermissible, emphasizing the binding nature of settlement terms. Enforcement under Section 634A was allowed for the Board's order, dismissing arguments against its enforceability. The appellant's attempt to avoid obligations was likened to fraud on the tribunal. The Court affirmed that technical objections conflicting with the settlement's intent were not permissible, and upheld the settlement terms. en-us Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:25:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106284 The Court upheld the settlement agreement's validity, emphasizing parties' obligations and rejecting attempts to avoid compliance. The agreement required sale and purchase of shares, with valuation by a specified valuer. The Court found objections contrary to the settlement's intent impermissible, emphasizing the binding nature of settlement terms. Enforcement under Section 634A was allowed for the Board's order, dismissing arguments against its enforceability. The appellant's attempt to avoid obligations was likened to fraud on the tribunal. The Court affirmed that technical objections conflicting with the settlement's intent were not permissible, and upheld the settlement terms. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106284