https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356942 A company's agreement to sell immovable assets was treated as unenforceable because disposal of the whole or substantially the whole of the undertaking required shareholder approval under Section 293(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 and the company's articles. The doctrine of indoor management could not cure that mandatory statutory breach, and board minutes could not substitute for general meeting consent. The purchaser was denied specific performance because the contract lacked statutory validity and readiness and willingness was not proved; ancillary damages were also rejected for insufficient pleadings and proof. The plaintiff in the first suit was permitted to challenge the transaction, while a separate plea that the clauses were prejudicial to the company was not accepted on its own. en-us Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:01:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356942 A company's agreement to sell immovable assets was treated as unenforceable because disposal of the whole or substantially the whole of the undertaking required shareholder approval under Section 293(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 and the company's articles. The doctrine of indoor management could not cure that mandatory statutory breach, and board minutes could not substitute for general meeting consent. The purchaser was denied specific performance because the contract lacked statutory validity and readiness and willingness was not proved; ancillary damages were also rejected for insufficient pleadings and proof. The plaintiff in the first suit was permitted to challenge the transaction, while a separate plea that the clauses were prejudicial to the company was not accepted on its own. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356942