https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345392 The court revoked the leave granted to the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as they failed to demonstrate a commonality of interest among themselves and the non-promoter shareholders they sought to represent. The court found that the plaintiffs could not validly represent the non-promoter shareholders due to varying circumstances and perceptions, leading to the dismissal of the representative suit. The Chamber Summons was allowed, emphasizing the lack of a shared interest among the shareholders regarding the ouster of Cyrus Mistry and its alleged impact on share prices. en-us Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:48:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345392 The court revoked the leave granted to the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as they failed to demonstrate a commonality of interest among themselves and the non-promoter shareholders they sought to represent. The court found that the plaintiffs could not validly represent the non-promoter shareholders due to varying circumstances and perceptions, leading to the dismissal of the representative suit. The Chamber Summons was allowed, emphasizing the lack of a shared interest among the shareholders regarding the ouster of Cyrus Mistry and its alleged impact on share prices. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345392