https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196093 A private 65:35 shareholding arrangement could not be enforced once the amended Articles of Association deleted the clause preserving that ratio; the Articles prevailed over the prior settlement and related correspondence, so the post-amendment share transfer was not restrained. The Union, however, had locus standi to sue because the 1974 settlement was treated as an industrial settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Union was a party to it with a sufficient legal interest to complain of its alleged breach. The appeal therefore failed on merits in relation to enforcement of the shareholding ratio, while the challenge to locus standi was rejected. en-us Mon, 05 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:58:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196093 A private 65:35 shareholding arrangement could not be enforced once the amended Articles of Association deleted the clause preserving that ratio; the Articles prevailed over the prior settlement and related correspondence, so the post-amendment share transfer was not restrained. The Union, however, had locus standi to sue because the 1974 settlement was treated as an industrial settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Union was a party to it with a sufficient legal interest to complain of its alleged breach. The appeal therefore failed on merits in relation to enforcement of the shareholding ratio, while the challenge to locus standi was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 05 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196093