https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302181 A company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement was considered alongside an earlier civil suit concerning the same shares and the company's movable and immovable properties, with substantially the same parties. Because both proceedings raised a directly and substantially identical issue, simultaneous adjudication carried a real risk of conflicting decisions. The Company Law Board applied section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, together with its inherent powers and regulation 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, to preserve consistency in adjudication. The company petition was stayed pending disposal of the prior suit. en-us Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 May 2022 13:02:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302181 A company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement was considered alongside an earlier civil suit concerning the same shares and the company's movable and immovable properties, with substantially the same parties. Because both proceedings raised a directly and substantially identical issue, simultaneous adjudication carried a real risk of conflicting decisions. The Company Law Board applied section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, together with its inherent powers and regulation 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, to preserve consistency in adjudication. The company petition was stayed pending disposal of the prior suit. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302181