<?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>2018 (8) TMI 1960 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288309</link>
    <description>Interim relief in an oppression and mismanagement petition requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and a risk of irreparable injury. Where the same business arrangement, assets and related disputes were already under the High Court&#039;s supervision in connected arbitration proceedings, with directions and commissioners in place, the Tribunal could properly refuse overlapping interim orders. The requested status quo directions on management, shareholding, assets and access to accounts would have duplicated or conflicted with the High Court&#039;s ongoing control, so no interference with the refusal was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 May 2020 04:22:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=614079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1960 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288309</link>
      <description>Interim relief in an oppression and mismanagement petition requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and a risk of irreparable injury. Where the same business arrangement, assets and related disputes were already under the High Court&#039;s supervision in connected arbitration proceedings, with directions and commissioners in place, the Tribunal could properly refuse overlapping interim orders. The requested status quo directions on management, shareholding, assets and access to accounts would have duplicated or conflicted with the High Court&#039;s ongoing control, so no interference with the refusal was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>