https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776151 Transactions entered into in breach of an existing restraint order and recorded undertaking were treated as incapable of conferring equitable advantage, especially where the material dealings were not fully disclosed and no leave of the Tribunal was obtained. The Tribunal also took the view that, in a closely held company's dispute over its sole immovable asset, the majority shareholders could be given an opportunity to purchase the property in the company's interest rather than requiring notice to a prospective purchaser. Section 242(2)(f) of the Companies Act, 2013 was held inapplicable because the proceedings did not concern modification or termination of a disclosed agreement within that provision's scope. en-us Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Aug 2025 08:19:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776151 Transactions entered into in breach of an existing restraint order and recorded undertaking were treated as incapable of conferring equitable advantage, especially where the material dealings were not fully disclosed and no leave of the Tribunal was obtained. The Tribunal also took the view that, in a closely held company's dispute over its sole immovable asset, the majority shareholders could be given an opportunity to purchase the property in the company's interest rather than requiring notice to a prospective purchaser. Section 242(2)(f) of the Companies Act, 2013 was held inapplicable because the proceedings did not concern modification or termination of a disclosed agreement within that provision's scope. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776151