<?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>2002 (11) TMI 665 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108576</link>
    <description>A contractual covenant in loan documents prohibiting disposal of shareholding without lender approval was treated as sufficient to justify interim protection where a proposed transfer could alter control and affect the security position. The court found that preservation of the agreed status quo and secured assets warranted restraint against transfer of the specified shareholding and alienation or encumbrance of the immovable security. However, relief was declined in respect of stock-in-trade, because a blanket restraint over movable business assets would interfere with trading and exports. Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inventory those movables was also refused, with the parties instead left to arrange periodic inventory by representatives.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:30:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145593" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 665 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108576</link>
      <description>A contractual covenant in loan documents prohibiting disposal of shareholding without lender approval was treated as sufficient to justify interim protection where a proposed transfer could alter control and affect the security position. The court found that preservation of the agreed status quo and secured assets warranted restraint against transfer of the specified shareholding and alienation or encumbrance of the immovable security. However, relief was declined in respect of stock-in-trade, because a blanket restraint over movable business assets would interfere with trading and exports. Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inventory those movables was also refused, with the parties instead left to arrange periodic inventory by representatives.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>