https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112745 An intra-court appeal was held not maintainable against a Single Judge's order passed under Article 227, because section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act applies only to judgments in original jurisdiction and a supervisory order does not carry that appeal right. The civil suit challenging the legality of the rights issue and special resolution was held maintainable, as civil court jurisdiction is presumed and the dispute was not shown to fall within an exclusive company-law forum. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was available to examine the civil court's interim injunction despite an alternative remedy. On the merits, the rights issue was found not to violate section 81 of the Companies Act, 1956, because the notice requirement was satisfied and a special resolution under section 81(1A) could validly override renunciation rights. en-us Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112745 An intra-court appeal was held not maintainable against a Single Judge's order passed under Article 227, because section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act applies only to judgments in original jurisdiction and a supervisory order does not carry that appeal right. The civil suit challenging the legality of the rights issue and special resolution was held maintainable, as civil court jurisdiction is presumed and the dispute was not shown to fall within an exclusive company-law forum. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was available to examine the civil court's interim injunction despite an alternative remedy. On the merits, the rights issue was found not to violate section 81 of the Companies Act, 1956, because the notice requirement was satisfied and a special resolution under section 81(1A) could validly override renunciation rights. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112745