<?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>2025 (12) TMI 828 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783288</link>
    <description>Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 is stated to bar civil court proceedings where the National Company Law Tribunal is empowered to decide the dispute. In oppression and mismanagement matters under sections 241 and 242, the NCLT&#039;s remedial powers are described as wide enough to consider company affairs, set aside or modify transactions, and examine allegations of forgery or fabrication linked to statutory records. On the pleaded facts, the shareholders&#039; agreement, transfer forms and board resolutions were treated as integral to the pending company petition, so parallel civil proceedings risked conflicting findings. The plaint was therefore held liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2025 12:29:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 828 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783288</link>
      <description>Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 is stated to bar civil court proceedings where the National Company Law Tribunal is empowered to decide the dispute. In oppression and mismanagement matters under sections 241 and 242, the NCLT&#039;s remedial powers are described as wide enough to consider company affairs, set aside or modify transactions, and examine allegations of forgery or fabrication linked to statutory records. On the pleaded facts, the shareholders&#039; agreement, transfer forms and board resolutions were treated as integral to the pending company petition, so parallel civil proceedings risked conflicting findings. The plaint was therefore held liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>