https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338035 A consent order regulating a pending company petition and completion of pleadings was construed as a procedural safeguard against further litigation on the same dispute, not as a restraint on the company's internal management or shareholders' statutory rights. The prohibition on initiating action or proceedings over the subject matter pending disposal of the petition was held insufficient to bar steps for removal of a director or convening an extraordinary general meeting. Because contempt jurisdiction requires a clear and explicit direction capable of being violated, and no such restraint was contained in the order, the essential ingredients of contempt were not made out. The contempt application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. en-us Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338035 A consent order regulating a pending company petition and completion of pleadings was construed as a procedural safeguard against further litigation on the same dispute, not as a restraint on the company's internal management or shareholders' statutory rights. The prohibition on initiating action or proceedings over the subject matter pending disposal of the petition was held insufficient to bar steps for removal of a director or convening an extraordinary general meeting. Because contempt jurisdiction requires a clear and explicit direction capable of being violated, and no such restraint was contained in the order, the essential ingredients of contempt were not made out. The contempt application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338035