<?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>2015 (10) TMI 2659 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193831</link>
    <description>Transfer of equity shares under the shareholders&#039; agreement was read harmoniously with the contract terms, and the agreement could not override the articles of association. The nominee directors had already been appointed before the suit, and interim relief remained governed by the ordinary tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The argument that civil court jurisdiction was wholly excluded under Section 26 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was not accepted at that stage, but the plaintiffs still failed to establish a prima facie case for temporary injunction. The revisional court therefore found no ground to interfere with the order refusing injunction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:10:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2659 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193831</link>
      <description>Transfer of equity shares under the shareholders&#039; agreement was read harmoniously with the contract terms, and the agreement could not override the articles of association. The nominee directors had already been appointed before the suit, and interim relief remained governed by the ordinary tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The argument that civil court jurisdiction was wholly excluded under Section 26 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was not accepted at that stage, but the plaintiffs still failed to establish a prima facie case for temporary injunction. The revisional court therefore found no ground to interfere with the order refusing injunction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>