https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109667 The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the Board Meeting held on 20th October 1989 was invalid due to lack of written notice, nullifying its effects. The withdrawal of Dankha Devi's suit did not prevent challenges to Bhagirath's ownership of the 1650 shares. Interlocutory orders, including allowing Bhagirath to vote on disputed shares, were not final determinations. The final decision on share ownership was left for the final disposal of the company petition, with interim orders vacated but actions based on them remaining valid. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:49:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109667 The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the Board Meeting held on 20th October 1989 was invalid due to lack of written notice, nullifying its effects. The withdrawal of Dankha Devi's suit did not prevent challenges to Bhagirath's ownership of the 1650 shares. Interlocutory orders, including allowing Bhagirath to vote on disputed shares, were not final determinations. The final decision on share ownership was left for the final disposal of the company petition, with interim orders vacated but actions based on them remaining valid. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109667