https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111781 Interim injunction to restore claimants as directors was refused because their alleged 61% contribution was unsupported by reliable proof of payment, source of funds, books of account, income-tax returns, or other contemporaneous material. The land stood in the company's name, the claimants were not shareholders, and no legally recognisable or equitable entitlement was shown. On that basis, the court declined to interfere with internal corporate management or compel induction of non-shareholders as directors at the interim stage, and the protective status quo arrangement was lifted. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2014 17:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111781 Interim injunction to restore claimants as directors was refused because their alleged 61% contribution was unsupported by reliable proof of payment, source of funds, books of account, income-tax returns, or other contemporaneous material. The land stood in the company's name, the claimants were not shareholders, and no legally recognisable or equitable entitlement was shown. On that basis, the court declined to interfere with internal corporate management or compel induction of non-shareholders as directors at the interim stage, and the protective status quo arrangement was lifted. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111781