https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126987 The application for modifying the order restraining alienation of fixed assets was dismissed by the court. The respondent sought modification to lease out assets, citing potential loss if not leased, while the petitioners raised concerns about asset transfer probity and impact on their shareholding. Despite arguments from both sides, the court upheld the restraint order, considering potential irreparable loss and injury to all parties. The petitioners were directed to file a rejoinder within a specified timeframe to prevent cancellation of the previous order, aiming to ensure fairness and justice in the legal proceedings. en-us Mon, 17 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:05:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126987 The application for modifying the order restraining alienation of fixed assets was dismissed by the court. The respondent sought modification to lease out assets, citing potential loss if not leased, while the petitioners raised concerns about asset transfer probity and impact on their shareholding. Despite arguments from both sides, the court upheld the restraint order, considering potential irreparable loss and injury to all parties. The petitioners were directed to file a rejoinder within a specified timeframe to prevent cancellation of the previous order, aiming to ensure fairness and justice in the legal proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 17 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126987