<?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>2019 (8) TMI 1584 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291636</link>
    <description>Section 242(4) interim powers under the Companies Act were discussed in the context of protecting company property pending arbitral and company proceedings. The Tribunal applied the settled criteria for interim relief, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and undue hardship, and noted parallel relief requests before the arbitral forum. Concerned that third-party rights were being created in the immovable property covered by the sale deed, it considered preservation necessary to protect the company&#039;s interest. Status quo was directed in respect of the property until the arbitral forum or the jurisdictional objection application was decided, while the remaining interim reliefs were kept pending.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:07:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1584 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291636</link>
      <description>Section 242(4) interim powers under the Companies Act were discussed in the context of protecting company property pending arbitral and company proceedings. The Tribunal applied the settled criteria for interim relief, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and undue hardship, and noted parallel relief requests before the arbitral forum. Concerned that third-party rights were being created in the immovable property covered by the sale deed, it considered preservation necessary to protect the company&#039;s interest. Status quo was directed in respect of the property until the arbitral forum or the jurisdictional objection application was decided, while the remaining interim reliefs were kept pending.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>