https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338085 A court may protect a contractual repayment claim by directing deposit of the outstanding amount where a later transfer occurs despite an earlier injunction requiring disclosure of that liability. The deposit direction was upheld because the claim had been recognised in prior proceedings, but the automatic revival of an injunction on non-compliance was found unnecessary and was not sustained. The time for compliance with the deposit order was extended, and the separate challenge to refusal of interim injunction failed. en-us Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Aug 2017 18:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338085 A court may protect a contractual repayment claim by directing deposit of the outstanding amount where a later transfer occurs despite an earlier injunction requiring disclosure of that liability. The deposit direction was upheld because the claim had been recognised in prior proceedings, but the automatic revival of an injunction on non-compliance was found unnecessary and was not sustained. The time for compliance with the deposit order was extended, and the separate challenge to refusal of interim injunction failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338085