<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (8) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345989</link>
    <description>A civil suit challenging the co-option or appointment of directors in a private company and seeking injunctions against their functioning was held barred where the dispute concerned internal company management. The Court reasoned that such matters fall within the Companies Act framework, especially the oppression and mismanagement provisions and the Tribunal&#039;s powers to deal with director-related disputes. Section 430 was treated as wide enough to exclude civil court jurisdiction when the grievance relates to statutory rights in company management. A plea that the plaintiffs were non-members did not preserve civil jurisdiction because no independent common law right was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345989</link>
      <description>A civil suit challenging the co-option or appointment of directors in a private company and seeking injunctions against their functioning was held barred where the dispute concerned internal company management. The Court reasoned that such matters fall within the Companies Act framework, especially the oppression and mismanagement provisions and the Tribunal&#039;s powers to deal with director-related disputes. Section 430 was treated as wide enough to exclude civil court jurisdiction when the grievance relates to statutory rights in company management. A plea that the plaintiffs were non-members did not preserve civil jurisdiction because no independent common law right was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345989</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>