https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260846 Section 10A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 gives finality only to appointments, removals, reconstitutions and elections duly made under that provision, so appointments made under the Companies Act, 1956 do not gain statutory immunity unless they fall within the protected reconstitution mechanism. The challenged appointments were not shown to have been made under section 10A(3), (4) or (5), and the suit was therefore maintainable and not barred by section 10A(6). Civil court jurisdiction is excluded only by express words or necessary implication, and no such bar was found in the Companies Act for a suit challenging allegedly ultra vires corporate appointments. The plaintiffs could proceed with the suit and seek interim reliefs. en-us Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260846 Section 10A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 gives finality only to appointments, removals, reconstitutions and elections duly made under that provision, so appointments made under the Companies Act, 1956 do not gain statutory immunity unless they fall within the protected reconstitution mechanism. The challenged appointments were not shown to have been made under section 10A(3), (4) or (5), and the suit was therefore maintainable and not barred by section 10A(6). Civil court jurisdiction is excluded only by express words or necessary implication, and no such bar was found in the Companies Act for a suit challenging allegedly ultra vires corporate appointments. The plaintiffs could proceed with the suit and seek interim reliefs. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260846