<?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>2023 (10) TMI 1221 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444998</link>
    <description>A company court may grant limited interim protection where a proposed corporate decision creates a concrete conflict of interest and could prejudice pending proceedings before another forum, while avoiding any encroachment on that forum&#039;s jurisdiction. At the same time, it will not ordinarily restrain the holding of a company meeting or interfere with its convening, unless the challenge concerns a defect in the procedural or numerical requirements for the meeting itself. On these principles, the court confined relief to restraining a shareholder-controlled decision that could amount to consent or no-objection for handing over possession of two flats, but refused to stop the extraordinary general meeting or grant wider interim reliefs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 15:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 1221 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444998</link>
      <description>A company court may grant limited interim protection where a proposed corporate decision creates a concrete conflict of interest and could prejudice pending proceedings before another forum, while avoiding any encroachment on that forum&#039;s jurisdiction. At the same time, it will not ordinarily restrain the holding of a company meeting or interfere with its convening, unless the challenge concerns a defect in the procedural or numerical requirements for the meeting itself. On these principles, the court confined relief to restraining a shareholder-controlled decision that could amount to consent or no-objection for handing over possession of two flats, but refused to stop the extraordinary general meeting or grant wider interim reliefs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>