https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459437 Status quo orders covering protected shareholding were treated as binding on both encumbered and unencumbered shares, so later transfers of unencumbered shares and reliance on prior loan documents or powers of attorney did not excuse compliance. The Court found wilful disobedience where the share movement was unexplained and no prompt clarification was sought, and recorded contempt against the financial institutions and their directors. It also found that repeated undertakings to preserve the asset base were breached by reduction and encumbrance of the listed company's shareholding, with concealment of material facts and continued dilution supporting civil contempt; the conduct was also noted to have elements of criminal contempt. en-us Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Dec 2024 14:38:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459437 Status quo orders covering protected shareholding were treated as binding on both encumbered and unencumbered shares, so later transfers of unencumbered shares and reliance on prior loan documents or powers of attorney did not excuse compliance. The Court found wilful disobedience where the share movement was unexplained and no prompt clarification was sought, and recorded contempt against the financial institutions and their directors. It also found that repeated undertakings to preserve the asset base were breached by reduction and encumbrance of the listed company's shareholding, with concealment of material facts and continued dilution supporting civil contempt; the conduct was also noted to have elements of criminal contempt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459437