<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (5) TMI 153 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395120</link>
    <description>A person bound by an order, though not a party to the testamentary suit, had sufficient legal grievance to challenge it, so the appeals were maintainable. The probate court could not, without first deciding the threshold objection to its inherent jurisdiction, pass interim directions interfering with the annual general meetings and voting or publication processes of separate third-party companies. An ex parte ad interim restraint affecting absent parties also required adequate reasons; here, the absence of reasons and the balance of convenience did not justify the corporate restraint. The interim directions were therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 May 2020 09:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 153 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395120</link>
      <description>A person bound by an order, though not a party to the testamentary suit, had sufficient legal grievance to challenge it, so the appeals were maintainable. The probate court could not, without first deciding the threshold objection to its inherent jurisdiction, pass interim directions interfering with the annual general meetings and voting or publication processes of separate third-party companies. An ex parte ad interim restraint affecting absent parties also required adequate reasons; here, the absence of reasons and the balance of convenience did not justify the corporate restraint. The interim directions were therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395120</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>