https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109946 Civil jurisdiction is not impliedly barred merely because company-law remedies for oppression and mismanagement are available; exclusion must be express or by necessary implication, and the dispute involved civil rights enforceable in a civil suit. Section 293(1)(a) applies only where the company owning the undertaking seeks to dispose of the whole or substantially the whole of it; a share-swap arrangement involving subsidiaries as separate legal owners did not attract the provision, so shareholder approval was unnecessary. The objects clause did not impose a blanket prohibition beyond section 293 requirements, and the transaction was not ultra vires. Preference-share voting rights could not be exercised where doing so would breach regulatory caps and licence conditions, so the claimed voting rights were denied. en-us Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109946 Civil jurisdiction is not impliedly barred merely because company-law remedies for oppression and mismanagement are available; exclusion must be express or by necessary implication, and the dispute involved civil rights enforceable in a civil suit. Section 293(1)(a) applies only where the company owning the undertaking seeks to dispose of the whole or substantially the whole of it; a share-swap arrangement involving subsidiaries as separate legal owners did not attract the provision, so shareholder approval was unnecessary. The objects clause did not impose a blanket prohibition beyond section 293 requirements, and the transaction was not ultra vires. Preference-share voting rights could not be exercised where doing so would breach regulatory caps and licence conditions, so the claimed voting rights were denied. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109946