<?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>1998 (4) TMI 571 - THE COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299573</link>
    <description>A petition was held not maintainable where the petitioner failed to disclose earlier proceedings on the same grievance and appeared to be pursuing multiple forums without full candour. The nondisclosure was treated as suppression of material facts and an indication of forum shopping, justifying refusal to entertain the petition. The petition was also found barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and laches, as the challenged transfer and duplicate share issue had occurred long before filing and the petitioner had been aware of the action meanwhile. On those maintainability grounds, the merits were not examined and the petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=664662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 571 - THE COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299573</link>
      <description>A petition was held not maintainable where the petitioner failed to disclose earlier proceedings on the same grievance and appeared to be pursuing multiple forums without full candour. The nondisclosure was treated as suppression of material facts and an indication of forum shopping, justifying refusal to entertain the petition. The petition was also found barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and laches, as the challenged transfer and duplicate share issue had occurred long before filing and the petitioner had been aware of the action meanwhile. On those maintainability grounds, the merits were not examined and the petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>