https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199918 The court upheld the preliminary objection on the competence of the revision petition under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, finding no exceptional circumstances for interference. It determined that possession of the property was with the company's consent, given by the Board of Directors, dismissing the suit. The court clarified that corporate consent can be represented by the company's directing mind and will, such as the Board of Directors, concluding that the applicant was not dispossessed without consent. The revision petition was dismissed, and no final opinion was given on the interpretation of 'otherwise dispose of' under the Companies Act. en-us Tue, 13 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:48:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199918 The court upheld the preliminary objection on the competence of the revision petition under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, finding no exceptional circumstances for interference. It determined that possession of the property was with the company's consent, given by the Board of Directors, dismissing the suit. The court clarified that corporate consent can be represented by the company's directing mind and will, such as the Board of Directors, concluding that the applicant was not dispossessed without consent. The revision petition was dismissed, and no final opinion was given on the interpretation of 'otherwise dispose of' under the Companies Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 13 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199918