https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366943 The Court set aside the order, allowing defendants' applications and dismissing plaintiffs' applications. It held that jurisdiction was lacking due to the foreign entities involved and the core dispute concerning shareholders of foreign entities. The Court found the cause of action primarily stemmed from decisions made outside its jurisdiction and that relief sought against Defendant No.1 did not establish jurisdiction. The derivative action was denied due to the absence of a clear declaration of beneficial interest by the foreign entity. The Court emphasized the applicability of Dubai law to resolve disputes involving foreign entities and barred relief under Indian statutes. Allegations of fraud lacked specificity, and the suit was time-barred, leading to the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. en-us Fri, 03 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366943 The Court set aside the order, allowing defendants' applications and dismissing plaintiffs' applications. It held that jurisdiction was lacking due to the foreign entities involved and the core dispute concerning shareholders of foreign entities. The Court found the cause of action primarily stemmed from decisions made outside its jurisdiction and that relief sought against Defendant No.1 did not establish jurisdiction. The derivative action was denied due to the absence of a clear declaration of beneficial interest by the foreign entity. The Court emphasized the applicability of Dubai law to resolve disputes involving foreign entities and barred relief under Indian statutes. Allegations of fraud lacked specificity, and the suit was time-barred, leading to the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 03 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366943