<?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>2012 (7) TMI 1176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459589</link>
    <description>Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 preserves the Company Court&#039;s inherent power to grant interim injunctions in proceedings under the Companies Act, and that power extends to interlocutory relief needed to secure justice or prevent abuse of process. A non-speaking refusal to continue an existing injunction, after it had been restored and was still affecting substantive rights, was unsustainable because discretionary orders affecting accrued protection should ordinarily give reasons. The refusal was set aside, the earlier injunction restored, and the pending applications were directed to be decided expeditiously after hearing both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 16:30:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 1176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459589</link>
      <description>Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 preserves the Company Court&#039;s inherent power to grant interim injunctions in proceedings under the Companies Act, and that power extends to interlocutory relief needed to secure justice or prevent abuse of process. A non-speaking refusal to continue an existing injunction, after it had been restored and was still affecting substantive rights, was unsustainable because discretionary orders affecting accrued protection should ordinarily give reasons. The refusal was set aside, the earlier injunction restored, and the pending applications were directed to be decided expeditiously after hearing both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>