https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358438 A contractual exit arrangement was enforced according to its terms because the petitioners were found to have failed to procure transfer of the balance shares, secure investors, and facilitate the respondent's realisation of the exit amount. The agreement imposed substantive obligations that were not conditional on prior identification of investors. The article also notes that Section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not render the arrangement void, as it was treated as a mutual exit arrangement between individuals rather than a contract squarely within the provision's prohibitory scope. On that basis, the arbitral award was upheld and the Section 34 challenge failed. en-us Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:39:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358438 A contractual exit arrangement was enforced according to its terms because the petitioners were found to have failed to procure transfer of the balance shares, secure investors, and facilitate the respondent's realisation of the exit amount. The agreement imposed substantive obligations that were not conditional on prior identification of investors. The article also notes that Section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not render the arrangement void, as it was treated as a mutual exit arrangement between individuals rather than a contract squarely within the provision's prohibitory scope. On that basis, the arbitral award was upheld and the Section 34 challenge failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358438