https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395898 Civil court jurisdiction was held not to be barred for interlocutory relief arising from a contractual and commercial dispute, because the relief was injunctive and not shown to lie exclusively before the Companies Act Tribunal. Majority shareholders were accepted to maintain the application in a representative capacity on the basis of urgent company prejudice and the need to protect the company's interests. A mandatory interim injunction to compel consent for creation of security over company assets was refused because such relief would alter rather than restore the existing position, did not arise from the plaintiff's cause of action, and could not override express contractual rights or prejudice secured-creditor priority. en-us Thu, 11 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jun 2020 09:54:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395898 Civil court jurisdiction was held not to be barred for interlocutory relief arising from a contractual and commercial dispute, because the relief was injunctive and not shown to lie exclusively before the Companies Act Tribunal. Majority shareholders were accepted to maintain the application in a representative capacity on the basis of urgent company prejudice and the need to protect the company's interests. A mandatory interim injunction to compel consent for creation of security over company assets was refused because such relief would alter rather than restore the existing position, did not arise from the plaintiff's cause of action, and could not override express contractual rights or prejudice secured-creditor priority. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395898