https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111327 The appeal was partly allowed, with modifications to the Company Law Board's order to ensure the smooth functioning of the company amidst the deadlock between the directors. The Court emphasized the need for immediate relief under the Companies Act while leaving the final determination of share ownership to the civil court. The Court upheld the order for the second respondent to purchase the shares of the first respondent, with valuation to be determined by a valuer, and provided a timeline for the purchase with alternative measures if the initial purchase failed. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:42:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111327 The appeal was partly allowed, with modifications to the Company Law Board's order to ensure the smooth functioning of the company amidst the deadlock between the directors. The Court emphasized the need for immediate relief under the Companies Act while leaving the final determination of share ownership to the civil court. The Court upheld the order for the second respondent to purchase the shares of the first respondent, with valuation to be determined by a valuer, and provided a timeline for the purchase with alternative measures if the initial purchase failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111327