https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415018 Interim relief was refused because the applicant was not a shareholder when the disputed transactions occurred and acquired association with the company only later, so he lacked locus standi to challenge them for interim purposes. The tribunal also found that no prima facie case or balance of convenience had been established in favour of the applicant. It further directed that no further alienation of the company's assets should take place from the date of the order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, while expressly stating that the observations were only prima facie and would not affect the final decision in the company petition. en-us Thu, 07 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Nov 2021 06:14:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415018 Interim relief was refused because the applicant was not a shareholder when the disputed transactions occurred and acquired association with the company only later, so he lacked locus standi to challenge them for interim purposes. The tribunal also found that no prima facie case or balance of convenience had been established in favour of the applicant. It further directed that no further alienation of the company's assets should take place from the date of the order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, while expressly stating that the observations were only prima facie and would not affect the final decision in the company petition. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 07 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415018