https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237604 The appeal challenged the Company Law Board's decision to hear the main case before interlocutory applications, citing efficiency. The court disagreed, emphasizing the need to address interim relief separately to serve justice. It directed the Company Law Board to hear and decide on the interlocutory applications first, ensuring a common judgment within a specified timeframe. The court highlighted the importance of addressing the pending application seeking a restraint order on fund siphoning. The appeal was disposed of with modified directions, allowing parties to seek further guidance if necessary. en-us Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Oct 2013 23:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237604 The appeal challenged the Company Law Board's decision to hear the main case before interlocutory applications, citing efficiency. The court disagreed, emphasizing the need to address interim relief separately to serve justice. It directed the Company Law Board to hear and decide on the interlocutory applications first, ensuring a common judgment within a specified timeframe. The court highlighted the importance of addressing the pending application seeking a restraint order on fund siphoning. The appeal was disposed of with modified directions, allowing parties to seek further guidance if necessary. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237604