https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112230 The appellate court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit related to shares affected by the Harshad Mehta scam, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under the Companies Act, 1956. The court emphasized statutory provisions allowing for transfer and registration of shares, with avenues for appeal in case of refusal by the company. The lower appellate court's decision to dismiss the appeal was upheld, as the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under the Act rendered the civil court's jurisdiction inappropriate. The appeal was rejected due to the absence of substantial legal questions and the appellant's challenge being time-barred. en-us Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112230 The appellate court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit related to shares affected by the Harshad Mehta scam, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under the Companies Act, 1956. The court emphasized statutory provisions allowing for transfer and registration of shares, with avenues for appeal in case of refusal by the company. The lower appellate court's decision to dismiss the appeal was upheld, as the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under the Act rendered the civil court's jurisdiction inappropriate. The appeal was rejected due to the absence of substantial legal questions and the appellant's challenge being time-barred. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112230