<?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>2004 (1) TMI 371 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109322</link>
    <description>Civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC remains broad and is excluded only by express statutory bar or necessary implication. Where a special statute does not provide a complete, adequate and efficacious forum for the pleaded grievance, a civil suit is maintainable. Applying that principle to alleged illegal appointments and company management decisions, the High Court noted that the Companies Act did not shownly provide an alternative remedy sufficient to displace civil jurisdiction, and the dispute involved civil claims and alleged breach of statutory requirements in making appointments. The challenge to maintainability was therefore rejected and the suit was held not barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:28:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 371 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109322</link>
      <description>Civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC remains broad and is excluded only by express statutory bar or necessary implication. Where a special statute does not provide a complete, adequate and efficacious forum for the pleaded grievance, a civil suit is maintainable. Applying that principle to alleged illegal appointments and company management decisions, the High Court noted that the Companies Act did not shownly provide an alternative remedy sufficient to displace civil jurisdiction, and the dispute involved civil claims and alleged breach of statutory requirements in making appointments. The challenge to maintainability was therefore rejected and the suit was held not barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>