https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776628 An interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot ordinarily be used to block a company from convening board or general meetings to consider removal of a director. Section 169 requires an opportunity of hearing before removal, and Section 173(3) permits shorter board notice for urgent business subject to statutory conditions; a short-notice challenge alone did not justify pre-emptive restraint. The order below also failed to apply the settled tests for interim relief, as it did not clearly establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable harm. The restraint order was therefore set aside, and the parties were left to pursue remedies under the company-law and arbitral framework. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2025 08:26:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776628 An interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot ordinarily be used to block a company from convening board or general meetings to consider removal of a director. Section 169 requires an opportunity of hearing before removal, and Section 173(3) permits shorter board notice for urgent business subject to statutory conditions; a short-notice challenge alone did not justify pre-emptive restraint. The order below also failed to apply the settled tests for interim relief, as it did not clearly establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable harm. The restraint order was therefore set aside, and the parties were left to pursue remedies under the company-law and arbitral framework. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776628