<?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>1991 (2) TMI 416 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199474</link>
    <description>A civil suit seeking declaration, injunction and cancellation of transfer deeds in respect of shares was held not maintainable because the plaint in substance sought rectification of the register of members and adjudication of title to shares. The Companies Act, 1956 provided a specific remedy under Section 155 for such disputes, and Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 applied civil court procedure to company proceedings. Applying the principle that a statutory procedure must be followed exclusively, the general civil jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC was impliedly excluded, and the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:11:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 416 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199474</link>
      <description>A civil suit seeking declaration, injunction and cancellation of transfer deeds in respect of shares was held not maintainable because the plaint in substance sought rectification of the register of members and adjudication of title to shares. The Companies Act, 1956 provided a specific remedy under Section 155 for such disputes, and Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 applied civil court procedure to company proceedings. Applying the principle that a statutory procedure must be followed exclusively, the general civil jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC was impliedly excluded, and the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>