<?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>2015 (2) TMI 1332 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287952</link>
    <description>An ex parte interim order affecting a party&#039;s rights may be replaced by an accepted undertaking from the opposite party, with the interim protection modified accordingly. The Karnataka High Court noted that the appellate order setting aside the ex parte injunction had been passed without notice to the contesting respondent, and the parties later filed a joint memo under which the respondents undertook not to act inconsistently with the petitioner&#039;s rights under the development agreement and power of attorney. The undertaking was accepted in substitution of the earlier interim order, while the trial court was left to decide the pending injunction applications independently and within a fixed time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2020 08:51:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1332 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287952</link>
      <description>An ex parte interim order affecting a party&#039;s rights may be replaced by an accepted undertaking from the opposite party, with the interim protection modified accordingly. The Karnataka High Court noted that the appellate order setting aside the ex parte injunction had been passed without notice to the contesting respondent, and the parties later filed a joint memo under which the respondents undertook not to act inconsistently with the petitioner&#039;s rights under the development agreement and power of attorney. The undertaking was accepted in substitution of the earlier interim order, while the trial court was left to decide the pending injunction applications independently and within a fixed time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>