https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199163 An order granting or refusing participation in a company meeting can be treated as an injunction order made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, so an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) is maintainable. Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC was rejected because mere receipt of information at a place within jurisdiction, without any material act by the defendant there, does not create a cause of action. The suit was also held barred by the City Civil Courts Act, as disputes concerning corporate management fall within the exclusion for such matters. In the absence of territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction, no prima facie case existed for interim relief, and the injunction was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:45:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199163 An order granting or refusing participation in a company meeting can be treated as an injunction order made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, so an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) is maintainable. Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC was rejected because mere receipt of information at a place within jurisdiction, without any material act by the defendant there, does not create a cause of action. The suit was also held barred by the City Civil Courts Act, as disputes concerning corporate management fall within the exclusion for such matters. In the absence of territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction, no prima facie case existed for interim relief, and the injunction was unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199163