<?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>2010 (10) TMI 913 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126898</link>
    <description>A mixed company petition involving non-signatories and reliefs beyond the arbitration agreement was not capable of piecemeal reference to arbitration, so the section 8 application was rejected. A contractual clause and corresponding articles provision purporting to control further issue of shares could not be enforced where they conflicted with the statutory scheme under the Companies Act. On the interim material, the proposed rights issue was pro rata, no strong prima facie case of oppression was shown, and the balance of convenience favoured the company, so restraint on the issue was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:03:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 913 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126898</link>
      <description>A mixed company petition involving non-signatories and reliefs beyond the arbitration agreement was not capable of piecemeal reference to arbitration, so the section 8 application was rejected. A contractual clause and corresponding articles provision purporting to control further issue of shares could not be enforced where they conflicted with the statutory scheme under the Companies Act. On the interim material, the proposed rights issue was pro rata, no strong prima facie case of oppression was shown, and the balance of convenience favoured the company, so restraint on the issue was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>