https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370593 Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not bar civil court jurisdiction where the grievance was breach of an inter se family settlement, not a matter exclusively entrusted to the Tribunal. The Court treated the settlement as prima facie binding on non-signatories who had acted upon it, and held that conduct such as resignations and share transfers supported enforcement. It also found the arrangement workable and not too vague to be implemented at the interim stage. Although specific performance was not sought, interim declaratory and injunctive protection was continued to preserve the family settlement, subject to compliance with stipulated reciprocal acts. en-us Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:48:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370593 Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not bar civil court jurisdiction where the grievance was breach of an inter se family settlement, not a matter exclusively entrusted to the Tribunal. The Court treated the settlement as prima facie binding on non-signatories who had acted upon it, and held that conduct such as resignations and share transfers supported enforcement. It also found the arrangement workable and not too vague to be implemented at the interim stage. Although specific performance was not sought, interim declaratory and injunctive protection was continued to preserve the family settlement, subject to compliance with stipulated reciprocal acts. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370593