https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199650 The court allowed the appeal and set aside the temporary injunction restraining the defendants from implementing resolutions removing the plaintiff as a director. It held that the plaintiff's absence from board meetings did not automatically create a vacancy, and the resolutions required interpretation under the Companies Act. The court determined that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute concerning the plaintiff's directorship removal. The broad scope of the temporary injunction was found to significantly impact the company's operations, leading to its removal. Each party was directed to bear its own costs in the appeal. en-us Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:26:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199650 The court allowed the appeal and set aside the temporary injunction restraining the defendants from implementing resolutions removing the plaintiff as a director. It held that the plaintiff's absence from board meetings did not automatically create a vacancy, and the resolutions required interpretation under the Companies Act. The court determined that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute concerning the plaintiff's directorship removal. The broad scope of the temporary injunction was found to significantly impact the company's operations, leading to its removal. Each party was directed to bear its own costs in the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199650