https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415176 The court affirmed the civil court's jurisdiction over the matter of forfeiture of shares, clarifying that Company Law Board's authority under Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 does not extend to forfeiture issues. The plaintiffs succeeded in proving the unjustified forfeiture of their shares, leading to a decree in their favor for the issuance of shares. The defendant's plea for a fresh notice post-merger was rejected as unnecessary, and the rejection of applications under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC was upheld due to their finality. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the first appellate court's decision. en-us Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:58:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415176 The court affirmed the civil court's jurisdiction over the matter of forfeiture of shares, clarifying that Company Law Board's authority under Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 does not extend to forfeiture issues. The plaintiffs succeeded in proving the unjustified forfeiture of their shares, leading to a decree in their favor for the issuance of shares. The defendant's plea for a fresh notice post-merger was rejected as unnecessary, and the rejection of applications under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC was upheld due to their finality. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the first appellate court's decision. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415176