https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350608 An interim restraint against steps for removal of a director was held unsustainable because the statutory period was not treated as exhausted during the stay, the civil suit was not barred by Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, and prior resort to the NCLT did not trigger election since that forum could not grant the relevant relief. The court also held that suppression of prior NCLT proceedings disentitled the plaintiffs to equitable injunction. A special notice for removal need not state detailed reasons; disclosure is required at the meeting stage through the explanatory statement. A notice calling the board to consider whether to convene an EGM was not a Section 100 notice and did not infringe Section 179(1). The restraint was set aside. en-us Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350608 An interim restraint against steps for removal of a director was held unsustainable because the statutory period was not treated as exhausted during the stay, the civil suit was not barred by Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, and prior resort to the NCLT did not trigger election since that forum could not grant the relevant relief. The court also held that suppression of prior NCLT proceedings disentitled the plaintiffs to equitable injunction. A special notice for removal need not state detailed reasons; disclosure is required at the meeting stage through the explanatory statement. A notice calling the board to consider whether to convene an EGM was not a Section 100 notice and did not infringe Section 179(1). The restraint was set aside. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350608