https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195656 Civil court jurisdiction was held impliedly barred where the same grievances over alleged mismanagement, improper accounts, and irregular corporate conduct had already been pursued before the Company Law Board and the Securities Appellate Tribunal. The statutory oppression and mismanagement framework under Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as providing an effective special remedy, so a later civil suit on the same facts amounted to forum shopping and was not maintainable. A suit framed as declaration and injunction also failed because, once consequential relief was unavailable, it became a bare declaratory claim barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, warranting rejection of the plaint. en-us Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Oct 2023 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195656 Civil court jurisdiction was held impliedly barred where the same grievances over alleged mismanagement, improper accounts, and irregular corporate conduct had already been pursued before the Company Law Board and the Securities Appellate Tribunal. The statutory oppression and mismanagement framework under Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as providing an effective special remedy, so a later civil suit on the same facts amounted to forum shopping and was not maintainable. A suit framed as declaration and injunction also failed because, once consequential relief was unavailable, it became a bare declaratory claim barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, warranting rejection of the plaint. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195656