<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (7) TMI 780 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113830</link>
    <description>A shareholders agreement may be treated as concluded and binding even if all anticipated participants do not sign, where the contract otherwise defines the parties&#039; rights and obligations and does not leave essential terms for future agreement; the arbitration clause then remains valid and subsisting. Allegations that the petition also referred to harm to the company did not by themselves convert it into an impermissible derivative action, because the claimant also asserted injury to its own contractual and shareholding rights. Interim relief to restrain breach of non-compete and non-solicitation covenants still depends on ordinary equitable tests, and was refused where the restraint would be commercially ineffective and would sterilise business activity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2014 09:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 780 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113830</link>
      <description>A shareholders agreement may be treated as concluded and binding even if all anticipated participants do not sign, where the contract otherwise defines the parties&#039; rights and obligations and does not leave essential terms for future agreement; the arbitration clause then remains valid and subsisting. Allegations that the petition also referred to harm to the company did not by themselves convert it into an impermissible derivative action, because the claimant also asserted injury to its own contractual and shareholding rights. Interim relief to restrain breach of non-compete and non-solicitation covenants still depends on ordinary equitable tests, and was refused where the restraint would be commercially ineffective and would sterilise business activity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>